Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Car Exports

Mr. Charles Wardle: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the level of exports of the British car industry in 1990 and 1989.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): Last year 414,000 cars were exported from the United Kingdom compared with 339,000 cars in the previous year. That represents an increase of 22 per cent.

Mr. Wardle: Does not the recent export success of the automotive industry point the way for other manufacturers to follow, by switching more capacity from home to export markets? Is not it likely that by the mid-1990s car assembly in the United Kingdom will be well over 2 million vehicles? Would not the greatest threat to that success story be a recurrence of inflation or, worse still, a reversion to Labour's interventionist policies?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right on all counts. In the first four months of this year exports of cars were 101 per cent. up on those of the previous year. That is certainly an example to other industries. With regard to future developments, it is marvellous news that the decline in the car industry that went on for so long under the Labour Government has now been reversed, and we expect to be net exporters by the end of the year.

Mr. Hoyle: What representations has the Secretary of State, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer had from the motor industry about the state of the home market? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that sales are down and the car industry is facing real difficulties as a result? That is all because of the Government's economic policy, especially on interest charges and the rest. When will the right hon. Gentleman press his colleagues to help the motor industry to establish itself at home as well as overseas?

Mr. Lilley: The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I met the leaders of the car industry, and naturally, they were concerned about the decline in domestic demand for cars, but I could congratulate them on their good achievement in diverting production into exports, so that production in this country has been running at record levels.

Mr. Madel: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied that all European Community countries are playing by the same rules on what is allowed to attract overseas investment into the EC motor industry? Is he satisfied that the German Government are playing by the same rules in attracting investment in what was East Germany? Will he ask Sir Leon Brittan, as the competition Commissioner, to consider the matter?

Mr. Lilley: We keep that matter under constant review, especially with regard to the East German issue, which I shall take up, as my hon. Friend asks. It is important for us that British manufactured cars of Japanese marques are given free access throughout the Community. We are absolutely adamant that they shall have free circulation throughout the Community—[Interruption.]—despite the apparent resistance of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on current levels of manufacturing output.

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the state of manufacturing industry.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The index of manufacturing output in the first quarter of 1991 was 113·4. This was 1 per cent. lower than the previous quarter, but 17 per cent. higher than the average for 1980.

Mr. Wilson: Is the Minister aware that 100,000 manufacturing jobs in Britain are dependent on ICI? Is he aware that 4,000 people, including many of my constituents, are directly employed by ICI, and that last year Hanson spent £34 million on research, while ICI spent £500 million? Is the Minister aware of any other European Government who would stand idly by while the fate of such a company was determined by the rules of the casino?

Mr. Sainsbury: I was aware of all the hon. Gentleman's early points, but I must differ from him on his last point, because there is no bid or anything like a bid on the table.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a matter of great concern that manufacturing output has risen by only 3 per cent. since March 1973—18 years ago? Will he confirm that in the 18 years prior to that date manufacturing output rose by about 70 per cent? How does he account for the poor performance in recent years?

Mr. Sainsbury: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that performance has been poor in recent years. Indeed, the performance of manufacturing industry during the 1980s was outstanding compared with its rather dismal performance during the 1970s. Manufacturing output in the first quarter of this year was 17 per cent. higher than in 1980 and productivity was 56 per cent. higher. That is commendable.

Mr. Beith: Is it the Department's view, as well as that of the Prime Minister, that small manufacturing firms are getting a raw deal from the banks? If so, why is the Minister's Department not taking the initiative by


referring the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, instead of simply bringing in bank chairmen for a chat?

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be sensible to ascertain the facts rather than seek to take action upon allegations or anecdotal evidence alone.

Mr. Cran: Is my hon. Friend aware that Britain's biggest manufacturing company, British Aerospace, is based in my constituency? In view of the tripe that we sometimes hear from the Opposition on the subject of manufacturing, will my hon. Friend explain to them why British Aerospace had a record year last year in terms of profits which amounted to £376 million, a record year in terms of turnover with new orders amounting to £10·8 billion, and why this year's order book is also at the record level of £11·8 billion?

Mr. Sainsbury: I congratulate my hon. Friend on praising the performance of a particular British firm, because all too often we hear nothing from the Labour party but the running down and denigrating of industry and complaints about its performance. Perhaps the reasons for the success of British Aerospace, to which my hon. Friend referred, are related to its increases in productivity during the 1980s, to which I referred in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox).

Mr. Gordon Brown: Does the Minister now accept that, in addition to all the other problems that British manufacturing industry faces, any possible takeover of ICI will have huge consequences because every year ICI spends 17 times as much on research and development as the Hanson Trust? Will the Minister now stop evading the question and make the Conservative party's view clear? Is it opposed to a hostile Hanson takeover of ICI?

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman is for once jumping to conclusions instead of rattling off statistics. Perhaps he should have regard to the Government's legal responsibilities and wait until something happens that could give rise to a reference.

Industrial Winners

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from British business about the Government's role in picking industrial winners.

The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): The Government have received a policy document from the Confederation of British Industry, "Competing in the new Europe". That document would be important to the training and education of Opposition Members. It makes it very clear that the policies of the 1970s pursued by the Labour party, of intervention and massive investment in things that went wrong, are the last thing that this country now needs to carry on the revival of its manufacturing industry.

Mr. Shaw: Does my hon. Friend not find it incredible that people are still looking back to the 1960s and 1970s when drafting political policy documents? Does he agree that considerable research has now established that it is competition within the economy that creates winning

businesses, and that a policy of picking industrial winners is like going into a sweet shop and picking sweets from large jars containing many sweets of different colours, in that one does not always get the colour that one expects? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a ludicrous policy?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. The Labour party lost thousands of millions of pounds when it had the chance of steering the country's industrial policy. It was a disaster, with lost jobs, lost opportunities and large amounts of lost money. British Leyland—Rover alone lost £2,750 million and there were massive losses in the steel industry. That has been reversed by privatisation and by policies based on competition and sensible Government support for business. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set that policy out well in his speeches. Opposition Members should take up their training in industry by reading them.

Mr. James Lamond: Will the Minister look a little closer to the present day—from 1979 to 1990? He will find that more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the north-west of England alone and that another 74,000 jobs will be lost this year. If he is picking winners, why does he not do something about the multi-fibre arrangement to try to protect jobs in the textile industry?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening to the argument. The Government are not trying to pick winners; that is industry's job. The Government are creating a climate and framework in which industry can flourish. Many thousands of new jobs have been created in the 1980s. Naturally, there has been industrial change because technologies, products and customer requirements change, but it is the Government's policies and not those of the Labour party, that will continue the manufacturing revival of the 1980s into the 1990s.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that ICI has proved to be an industrial winner for this country and that its future is important for its 53,000 workers and the 4,700 who work for its pharmaceutical division in my constituency? Will he assure me that all aspects of the national interest will be taken into account if a hostile bid is made for that strategically important company by Hanson plc?

Mr. Redwood: I am sure that my hon. Friend will speak eloquently, should there be any action of the kind that he describes. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with his competition responsibilities, will consider all representations, should the need arise, and respond in the right way, given the powers of the European Community and the British Government.

Ms. Mowlam: The Minister has just stated that the Government are interested in setting the climate for businesses to flourish. I am sure that he would include in that small businesses. On "The Parliament Programme" at 12 o'clock he said, "The DTI has arranged"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Paraphrase please.

Ms. Mowlam: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. The Minister said that the DTI had arranged meetings throughout the country with banks and small businesses to facilitate the discussion of problems that small businesses are facing with the current bank rate. Several small businesses that


are concerned about the difficulties have contacted me. I wanted to inform them where the meetings were being held, so I contacted DTI regional offices, but they had no record of the meetings. I contacted the Bank of England regional offices, but of those only one office organises such meetings on a day-to-day basis. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Forum of Private Business and other voluntary organisations have no record of the meetings. Will the Minister tell us where they are to be held, because small businesses want to know?

Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the regional offices to arrange such meetings and they will take place. The hon. Lady should tell the interested companies to get in touch with DTI regional offices, which are there to serve the business community. The meetings will do just that—they will provide a forum for an exchange of views between the banks, the DTI and other interested parties.

Sir Robert McCrindle: Although it is riot the Government's job to pick industrial winners—clearly that is correct—does the Minister agree that banks that are exerting undue pressure on small businesses during the current recession may be acting to their own disadvantage because among the small businesses that face difficulties today there may be the industrial winners of tomorrow? In the discussions will Ministers draw to the attention of the joint stock banks the desirability of thinking carefully before exerting the squeeze on small businesses that appears to be happening now?

Mr. Redwood: Naturally, the banks should think of their long-term business interests, but it is for individual banks to assess the risks of each case. The Government expect to see interest rates falling on average for the corporate sector as base rates fall. If special circumstances exist in some cases, there may be a risk-premium charge. My hon. Friend is also right that it would not be desirable for banks to make life so difficult for many companies that there is not a large volume of corporate business for them in future.

Reeve Burgess

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will meet representatives of the work force of Reeve Burgess to discuss the setting up of a co-operative for the manufacture of coaches in the constituency of Bolsover.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): I have no plans at present to meet representatives of the work force of Reeve Burgess to discuss the setting up of a co-operative.

Mr. Skinner: The Minister should be ashamed of himself. Reeve Burgess is a company which manufactures buses and coaches. It is a winner, with profits of £60,000 again this April. The chances are that in May its profits will be roughly that amount. Orders are still coming in. That factory would continue, were it not for the Government's inflationary policy and asset stripping by Plaxton. If the Government can find money to bale out Rover and British Aerospace and to take those companies' troubles off their hands, they have a duty to find the money

for the 180 workers at Reeve Burgess so that they can keep their 100-year-old factory going. Will the Minister pull his finger out and get something done?

Mr. Leigh: Although the closure is regretted, it is part of a rationalisation of bus manufacturing capacity by the parent company, Plaxton. Production is to be transferred to its parent plant at Scarborough. I notice that the hon. Gentleman's original question laid great stress on the need to set up a co-operative to deal with that problem. Has he forgotten the lessons of co-operatives in the 1970s? Scottish Daily News ate its way through £1·2 million of taxpayers' money, Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering ate its way through £4·2 million of public money, and Meriden ate its way through £15 million of public money. I hope that Opposition Front-Bench Members will take this opportunity to say that they reject the neanderthal political thinking represented by Bolsover man, which represents the concepts of the 1970s on co-operatives and Bennery in all its guises.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Dickens, but the question must be about Bolsover.

Mr. Dickens: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister has reminded the House that, under the Labour Government, millions of pounds of taxpayers' money was given to co-operatives and never repaid. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is far better to leave those matters to the private sector than to sink taxpayers' money into co-operatives?

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am still waiting to hear whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will use this opportunity to say that he rejects the failed policies of the 1970s. Those policies have failed before and will fail again.

Kuwait

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the follow-up of his official visit to Kuwait.

Mr. Lilley: Since my visit the known value of contracts won by British companies in Kuwait has risen from about £70 million to at least £181 million. The Kuwaiti British Fire Group has signed an agreement with the Kuwait Oil company to survey the damage to the Sabriyah oilfield. The Government have continued to support the City's proposals for the administration of compensation claims.

Mr. Dalyell: In the task of trying to put out the resource-consuming, earth-polluting, cancer-giving 700 plus oil fires in Kuwait, are not small British firms disadvantaged in relation to their American counterparts by not getting the financial guarantees that the Americans enjoy?

Mr. Lilley: Certainly not. We have done all that we can to put large companies in touch with small companies with innovative ideas, and to put those ideas directly to the Kuwaiti authorities. The Americans are jealous of our actions to ensure that British companies have a lead in getting business in Kuwait, and there have been complaints in the American press that the American Government have not been as helpful as we have in this


matter. We have received many thanks and much support from British industry for the upfront way in which we have approached the issue.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, because of the unique experience gained in the North sea, British companies are in a strong position to exploit the opportunities that exist today in Kuwait? Will he also confirm that the British are held in high regard in Kuwait and it is the combination of those two factors that are making the Americans envious?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is good news that the Kuwaiti British Fire Group, which I think includes Scottish interests as well as those from the rest of the United Kingdom, has won the contract, which could lead to extensive work in Kuwait. I pay tribute to it for its efforts on that front.

Machine Tools Technologies Association

Mr. Buckley: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the Machine Tools Technologies Association to discuss the recession in industry.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the Machine Tools Technologies Association to discuss the recession in industry.

Mr. Redwood: My noble Friend the industry Minister has recently invited the Machine Tools Technologies Association to a meeting. I hope that it will take up that offer. I am sure that there is much to talk about.

Mr. Buckley: When the Minister meets the MTTA, will he take into account its 1991 spring report in which it expresses fears about the Government's tough, monetary policy, which has thrown an unnecessary burden onto the manufacture of machine tools? That will have an effect on the future upturn that may take place in British industry. Will that mean that the British machine tools industry will be incapable of meeting the demand? Will the Secretary of State take into account the number of changes in the Department of Trade and Industry which mean that manufacturing industry has no great influence on or interest in the Government's attitude?

Mr. Redwood: The Government are most interested in the future performance of manufacturing industry and give it every sensible support to achieve good performance. I have the report to which, I think, the hon. Gentleman referred. I am pleased to see that it says that in 1990 exports reached 50 per cent. of total production, which shows how much more competitive the industry is now than it was some years ago. It goes on to say that British machine tool technology leads the world in many important sectors and lists a series of important spares in which it does so. The Government welcome that and will give the industry support. The Minister for Trade met the industry's association at the end of last year to encourage the industry to export more. That is the sort of support that we shall continue to give the industry.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Minister aware of the other report of the Machine Tools Technologies Association on industrial trends, which shows that we are investing less in manufacturing and machine tools than we

were in 1979, that the manufacturing base is being eroded and that orders for that industry are decreasing faster than at any time since the second world war? At its meeting with the Government, the industry's association will want to know what positive steps the Government will take to help the industry. Will the Minister tell the House now?

Mr. Redwood: As I have already mentioned, the Government are keen to help the industry with the promotion of exports, which is its biggest sales sector and is, I believe, extremely competitive. The value of industrial advice from a former chief executive of Meriden is not so sure. Naturally, the MTTA will discuss a wide range of issues with my noble Friend the Minister for Industry, who will do whatever he can within our policies to provide the necessary assistance. We are not returning to backing winners because that would mean backing the wrong ones and, losing a lot of money for the taxpayer, which would make the economy worse, not better.

Mr. Burt: Bearing in mind that today there are more jobs in manufacturing in Britain than in France and Italy, does my hon. Friend agree that talk of our manufacturing industry's decline and death is premature? Will he and other Ministers in the Department do their best to ensure, both by rhetoric and conduct, that people who work in manufacturing industry believe that they and their companies are as important to the Government as anyone who works in the City?

Mr. Redwood: I agree. I, too, was proud to work in manufacturing industry for a period and I know what an important contribution it makes to our wealth generation. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are many manufacturing success stories of which we should be proud. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked about the revival of the motor industry in answer to an earlier question. The machine tools industry is doing great things in changing its design, pattern of sales and products. That is true of many other manufacturing industries, and we intend to create the conditions in which that revival can take place.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that we are all impressed by trade associations and their abilities—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to stop this bantering across the Chamber.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend consider—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It does not matter to me, Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition act like idiots—so it should not worry you.
These trade associations are important in respect of exports, but does my hon. Friend agree that if they are to prosper abroad it would have been more encouraging for British industry if the new Moscow trade centre had been built by a British firm, not a French one? Does he think that the French or the Germans would have allowed their trade centres in Moscow to be built by the British? I think not. That is one of the reasons why they are more successful than we are: they support their people while we sometimes throw ours to the wolves.

Mr. Redwood: It is also necessary to submit the lowest bid to win competitions. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade would have been delighted if the lower bid had come from a British company and I will ensure that he writes to my hon. Friend about any other matters that may be relevant in this case.

Mr. Henderson: The machine tool industry will be pleased to know that the Minister has read its recent report, but has he read yesterday's announcement that new orders in that industry are down 46 per cent. in the first quarter of this year compared with last year? Does he accept that the machine tool industry is an accurate barometer of what is happening in the rest of the economy? If so, does he agree that this is yet more damning evidence of the industrial damage being done to this country?

Mr. Redwood: Manufacturing investment was very high in the 1980s, particularly in the latter years of that decade. Of course the hon. Gentleman is right: there was some decline in orders at the beginning of this year, for domestic purposes, because the economy is weak at the moment, as he well knows. That is why I stress the importance of export markets accounting now for more than half the sales of the industry. We can give considerable support for that effort, and as the recovery gets under way in the United Kingdom domestic orders will of course increase.

Past Office

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to lift the Post Office letter monopoly.

Mr. Leigh: The Post Office's letter monopoly is a privilege, not a right. While we keep the options under review, we have no present plans to alter the scope of the letter monopoly, although in the event of a cessation or serious disruption to the letter service we would consider suspending it. The Government remain fully commit ted to the existence of a nationwide letter service with an affordable, uniform tariff structure, available to everyone, including those in rural areas.

Mr. Brown: When my hon. Friend gets back to his office at the DTI will he open his top drawer in which, when serving as a PPS to his predecessor, I recall leaving a copy of a document published by the No Turning Back group, entitled "Choice and Responsibility"? It was co-authored by my hon. Friend and myself and by a large number of our other colleagues last July. I commend to my hon. Friend the words on page 14, where we wrote:
The Post Office monopoly can no longer be justified.

Mr. Leigh: As we have an entirely open mind on this matter I can announce today that I am happy to read any pamphlets on this issue, even those written by myself. More than that it might be unwise to say. My hon. Friend might conclude—I would not, but he might—that it is a misfortune of political life that a Back Bencher can say exactly what he wants although people do not always listen to him, while people always listen to a Minister, so he cannot say exactly what he wants to.
I have a book on my desk in the DTI to which I occasionally refer when I am given an idle moment. It was written in the 14th century and entitled "The Cloud of

Unknowing"—that represents the reactionary fog in which the Opposition move. They are not prepared to look at anything or to reform anything. What is, has to be, for now and for ever more. I am the Minister responsible for consumer affairs, and I am prepared to consider competition and value for consumers with an open mind.

Mr. Hain: I welcome the Minister's statement that he intends to retain the letter monopoly and I remind some of his hon. Friends who are keen to lift it that if they did so, cream-skimming would result and private operators would be willing to deliver only profitable inter-city routes. Conservative Members who advocate lifting the monopoly would find that services in rural areas would cause tariffs to rise to 80p a letter. The letter services to rural areas would be desperately hit and many Members thus affected would lose their seats as a result.

Mr. Leigh: I fear that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my original answer, in which I said that the Government are absolutely committed to a uniform tariff structure, even in rural areas. We are also committed to choice and value for money in the Post Office, but we do not rule out that in certain circumstances competition may well increase choice and be to the benefit of the consumer.

Mr. Harris: Despite the veiled attack by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), will the Minister accept the congratulations of most hon. Members from rural areas on getting the balance absolutely right on this difficult issue and for stressing the importance of a uniform tariff for the mail? By not ruling out the possibility of competition my hon. Friend has struck exactly the right balance.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend has also got it absolutely right.

Furniture Safety

Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made recently to the Economic Community regarding regulations on the safety of furniture.

Mr. Leigh: I visited Mr. Van Miert, the Commissioner responsible for consumer protection, on 17 May. We discussed matters arising from differences between the regulation of fire safety of furniture in the United Kingdom and the Commission's proposals for a directive on the fire behaviour of upholstered furniture. My Department has just received confirmation of a decision taken by the Commission not to proceed with the proposed directive on the fire behaviour of upholstered furniture pending research into the feasibility of suitable test methods.

Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer and for the information that the directive has been postponed. In view of continuing research, will he ensure that when the directive comes back for consideration, United Kingdom law on the safety of furniture is not weakened by the acceptance of lower standards? Will he especially ensure that the regulations contain a water-soak test on the permanence of chemical finishes to upholstery materials? Will he also ensure that ignition resistance and fire spread levels are equal to those set out in United Kingdom legislation?

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. There was absolute cross-party agreement on this issue. We were determined firmly to take up this matter with the Commission. We said that we had the strongest standards in Europe and that we had imposed them with cross-party support and would not accept any directive which lowered them. It is a victory for both sides of the House and for the fire service and the industry involved that the directive has been postponed. We shall make it clear to the Commission in the two or three years grace that when the directive is reintroduced it must be based on our excellent standards.

Mr. Conway: Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the British furniture industry for its co-operation in the implementation of the regulations, especially with regard to clear labelling which, of course, enables consumers to see exactly what they are buying? As Britain and Ireland are the only two member states to have such regulations, will my hon. Friend assure consumers and the House that we shall continue to press to make sure that such regulations apply throughout the European Community?

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Plainly, when we receive the directive we must ensure that it is based on our standards. It is vital for the industry and for consumer safety that there is no question of any dangerous foam-filled furniture being imported. Our trading standard officers can stop such furniture coming in and there is no question of a legal challenge to our very high standards.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that his failure to champion and secure tougher measures on foam safety means that many furniture manufacturing jobs and companies are at risk and that hundreds of thousands of foam-filled items of furniture can be imported? The matter can be challenged in the European Court and we should have had a settlement by now. Why have we not secured an effective and tough directive?

Mr. Leigh: Not for the first time the hon. Gentleman, who shadows me, appears to have devised his question before he heard my answer. I have made it clear that the Commission has withdrawn its directive. We cannot force the Commission to impose a directive now on our European competitors based on our high standards. All we can do is what we have achieved. We have prevented the Commission from introducing a directive which would have lowered those standards. Therefore, I repeat that the Commission's decision to withdraw the directive is a victory for both sides of the House. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has sought to make a party-political point out of the matter.

Mrs. Peacock: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on the furniture industry, but will he confirm to the House that in that industry he includes those in Britain who manufacture beds? Will he ensure that their high standards are maintained and not watered down by Europe? Will he also ensure that any goods that are not up to those high standards are rejected at our ports?

Mr. Leigh: The directive concerned our regulations on foam-filled furniture and in that respect my hon. Friend is right.

European Commission (Industrial Policy)

Mr. Cummings: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of the European Commission to discuss industrial policy.

Mr. Lilley: I met representatives of the Commission at the ministerial meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris yesterday and we discussed various issues related to trade and industry.

Mr. Cummings: Has the Minister recently considered the vast differences between the aid given to respective countries within the EC for research and development? Is it not rather foolish for us to be out of step with our competitors? Does he agree with the Prime Minister's constituent, Mr. Bill Abbotts, whose machine tool company is having real problems because of the Government's economic policies, that there really is nothing wrong with the country, only with its daft policies?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. In Britain, a higher proportion of research and development is financed by the Government than in most other countries and our research and development on civil matters financed by the Government is a slightly higher proportion of GDP than that financed by the Japanese Government. But the most successful research and development is often that carried out by private companies in a competitive environment because it is competition which stimulates innovation and growth and it is on that that we most rely. It is significant that during the last decade, when we returned to a competitive environment, for the first time for more than a century in peace time the British economy grew faster than that of France and Germany.

Sir Anthony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the CBI's new report "Competing in the New Europe" endorses the Government's policies on inflation, industrial relations and competition?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only that, but it condemns the Opposition's policies. It says that they are not wanted by industry, and it is right. When I go round the country, the Labour party is condemned because it has no strategy for defeating inflation. The country does not want to return to intervention, subsidies, controls and penal taxation with the trade unions back in the driving seat.

Ms. Quin: Would the Secretary of State care to explain to his European counterparts some of the crazy industrial policy decisions that the Government have taken? For example, can he defend the scandal of the closure of the Sunderland shipyards recently highlighted by "Panorama", the failure to support shipbuilding orders at Appledore shipbuilders in Devon or the failure to allow bidders for Ravenscraig to put forward their proposals? Is it not the case that far from the Opposition running down industry, it is the Government who are intent on closing facilities and turning away orders?

Mr. Lilley: That is absolute nonsense. Most of the policies to which the hon. Lady refers had a European dimension and we were acting within the constraints imposed by the European Commission and European law. I know that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) finds that distasteful, but none the less it is a fact. What I do find, and what I found yesterday at the OECD, is


complete amazement that there still exists one country in Europe with a party which still believes in socialism, and it is not east of the iron curtain, it is there on the Opposition Benches.

Potash

Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much potash by weight or value, at 1990 prices, was imported and exported by this country in each of the past 10 years.

Mr. Sainsbury: The United Kingdom has had a deficit in trade in potash in each of the last 10 years, but the clear trend has been for a reduction in that deficit over the decade. I will arrange for the full information requested to be published in the Official Report.

Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Would not that deficit be made much worse if the only potash mine in Britain, which is in my constituency, were to be closed? Is it not the Government's responsibility to ensure that jobs are maintained by seeking to keep open prosperous businesses? Have not the chances of that mine being kept open been severely weakened by the Secretary of State's crass decision not to allow the Kemira deal with ICI which would have enhanced the job prospects of my constituents and kept open the only potash mine in Britain?

Mr. Sainsbury: As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, no Secretary of State has overruled the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. My hon. Friend has described the company as successful; I

Table 1


United Kingdom trade in potassium chloride, 1981–19901




'000 tonnes

£'000s



Volume exports
Imports
Balance
Value exports
Imports
Balance


1981
91·2
467·0
-375·8
4,671
28,624
-23,953


1982
76·6
481·5
-404·9
4,733
27,925
-23,192


1983
145·7
472·5
-326·8
9,288
30,146
-20,858


1984
96·6
509·2
-412·6
6,522
34,767
-28,245


1985
78·5
574·5
-496·0
6,371
41,464
-35,093


1986
94·9
470·9
-376·0
7,293
34,718
-27,425


1987
327·4
521·2
-193·8
22,799
34,064
-11,265


1988
434·6
5706
-1360
29,595
38,150
-8,555


1989
367·1
452·6
-85·5
26,695
33,498
-6,803


1990
384·5
3—
3—
28,266
3—
3—

Table 2


United Kingdom trade in potassium salts, 1981–19902




'000 tonnes

£'000s



Volume exports
Imports
Balance
Value exports
Imports
Balance


1981
2·1
55·6
-53·5
686
6,010
-5,324


1982
2·4
58·8
-56·4
1,158
7,482
-6,324


1983
3—
60·4
3—
3—
8,372
3—


1984
3—
74·0
3—
3—
9,495
3—


1985
3—
64·6
3—
3—
10,463
3—


1986
3—
67·0
3—
3—
11,072
3—


1987
6·9
63·2
-56·3
2,323
11,823
-9,500


1988
7·5
84·2
-76·7
3,609
14,147
-10,538


1989
6·2
68·7
-62·5
3,505
15,206
-11,701


1990
8·2
102·1
-93·9
4,051
17,964
-13,913


1 Covers section 562·31 of the Standard International Trade Classification (SITC).


2 Covers sections 272·4, 522·64, 523·52, 523·74, 562·32 and 562·39 of the SITC.


3 Denotes that the figures are not available, since publication could be disclosive of commercially sensitive information.

Source: British Geological Survey.

congratulate it on its success, and, indeed, on its export achievements. The most effective way of keeping companies going are not Government intervention, subsidies and handouts, but efficient production by efficient companies and successful exporting.

Mr. Graham: Do the Minister and the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) realise on what the import of potash, and the success of that company, depend? In my constituency, many people work for Kvaerner Kincaed which produces marine ship engines. The company importing potash cannot have an engine built by any other British company, because Kvaerner Kincaed is the last company in Britain that produces such engines. Why are the Government standing idly by while my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is in Europe fighting his corner to keep the marine engine industry alive?

Mr. Sainsbury: I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the ingenuity with which he has linked the subject of marine engines with that of potash. I am happy to say that, because of the success of the company in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), marine engines often carry British exports of potash abroad, as well as bringing potash imports into this country.
The following is the information:
United Kingdom trade in "potash" (ie potassium salts) is predominantly in potassium chloride. Trade in this product is shown in table 1. Trade in other potassium salts is shown in table 2.
Values at constant prices are not available. Current price figures have been given in their place.

Imports

Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to reduce import penetration.

Mr. Lilley: The Department's policies aim to foster the competitiveness of British industry.

Mr. Lofthouse: Is not that a very complacent answer? There has been a 10 per cent. increase in import penetration since 1979, and currently 50 per cent. of cars, 80 per cent. of videos and 90 per cent. of office equipment are imported. Is the Secretary of State aware that National Power and PowerGen are contemplating importing another 30 million tonnes of coal, which will add £170 million to our balance of payments deficit? Has he no plans to control those imports?

Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to control imports, he must first persuade his party to propose that we leave the EC, as the matter is entirely within EC competence.
It so happens that import penetration in the United Kingdom as a proportion of gross domestic product is almost exactly the same as that in Germany, which is not generally held to be an uncompetitive country. I am glad to say that our exports have risen in volume terms by some 60 per cent. over the past decade, which is proof that British industry is competing abroad with increasing success. That is a result of our policy of encouraging competition.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we really believe in free trade, we should not be unduly worried about import penetration, but should do everything possible to encourage our exports? Is he really satisfied that we have an open market in Japan in all respects?

Mr. Lilley: I am never satisfied. Every time that I meet the Japanese industry Minister, as I did yesterday, I encourage him to open his market further to British goods. Over the past three years, when we have made our campaign to encourage the exporting of goods to Japan a priority, exports have nearly doubled. We are now launching a new campaign, with the support of the Japanese Government, to open up opportunities for British industry on an expanding scale. I am delighted that industry is responding to those opportunities.

Mr. Turner: Will the Secretary of State accept that import penetration is not helped by the obsessive mergers and takeovers with which we are so beset? A company in my constituency, S. Edge and Co., has traded successfully for many years. It has an excellent work force and an excellent product, but, as a result of a takeover, it is having to call in the receiver. What will the Secretary of State do about those 350 jobs?

Mr. Lilley: If a merger or takeover reduces competition, we can take action to prevent that under our mergers and competition policy. However, it would be wrong to protect every company from the prospect of managerial change or increased competition as a result of takeover.

Mr. Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that almost all the Labour party's policies would make British

firms less competitive in this market and, therefore, make import penetration even worse? Will he continue to warn the British public about that danger?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is no coincidence that the only period since the war, in a complete economic cycle, when there has been virtually no growth in productivity outside the oil industry and in non-oil GDP was during the previous Labour Government. That should be contrasted with the success of the 1980s when for the first time in a peacetime decade for a century, Britain outstripped France and Germany.

Single European Market

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the preparedness of British industry for the completion of the single European market.

Mr. Sainsbury: British industry is well informed about the single European market. Many firms are taking positive steps to meet the opportunities and challenges that it is bringing.

Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister admit that his Department is no thoroughbred when it comes to informing British companies about the single market? A recent survey showed that only 8 per cent. of those companies have any idea of what will happen to them when the starting stalls are opened. Is that not another reason why the Tories should be sent off to the knackers yard?

Mr. Sainsbury: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on including an appropriate series of analogies such as thoroughbreds on this day. I do not know whether he is aware of what will happen shortly after 3·45 pm. I am happy to say that our surveys show that there is 98 per cent. awareness in British industry of the single market as a result of our highly successful and appreciated advertising campaign. Over 50 per cent. of firms have said that they have taken, are taking or intend to take action to meet the changes brought about by the single market.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: What advice are the Government giving to the Japanese-owned British car manufacturers as to how they can take advantage of the single market, bearing in mind that, as the Minister knows, discussions are taking place now about the fact that the production of the Japanese-owned firms will be included within a collective EEC import quota? Does he appreciate that, instead of encouraging free trade, it will discourage any Japanese industrialists from investing in Britain?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to say that one Japanese company—Nissan—is exporting over 80 per cent. of its production. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we have made it clear that there is no doubt that Japanese-marked cars produced in Britain should be freely traded in the Community in the same way as cars produced by United States-owned firms.

Dr. Moonie: Given the critical importance of British Steel to British manufacturing industry's competitive position, why are the Government steadfastedly refusing to allow the House to debate the issue? Does the Minister accept that the Government hold a special share in British Steel and guarantees from that company? Given that


Ravenscraig is profitable and that there were other potential bidders for that part of British Steel, will the Minister call in that company and ask the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the position?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that a debate on the steel industry is so urgent when it is not a subject chosen for debate this very day by Her Majesty's Opposition. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that it is important that British industry should have available competitive and efficient supplies of steel. I feel that I hardly need remind the hon. Gentleman of how much more competitive and efficient the British steel industry has become since privatisation.

Mr. Oppenheim: Does not my hon. Friend consider discriminatory and extremely dangerous the proposals made by the European Commission to count cars with a high European content made in Britain in Japanese-owned factories as Japanese and therefore not to allow them to be sold freely in Europe? Is not it the case that European and especially British consumers have been ripped off for far too long by import barriers which have been lobbied for by inefficient, subsidised and protected European manufacturers such as Fiat and Renault? Is not it about time that such companies put their own houses in order rather than expecting the British consumer to foot the bill for them?

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise from what I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have said that there is no possibility of what he suggested about Japanese-marked cars made in Britain happening. We cannot anticipate what the European Commission will finally propose in that regard, but I repeat what I said earlier—as far as we are concerned, Japanese-marked cars made in Britain must be allowed to trade freely throughout the Community.

Recession

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the recession in industry in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lilley: Ministers and officials of my Department keep in touch with the CBI on a wide range of business matters. I next expect to meet representatives of the CBI on 14 June 1991.

Mr. Mitchell: I bet that the CBI is looking forward to an empty ministerial car drawing up outside its offices and the entire DTI team getting out. When the Secretary of State meets the CBI, will he tell it that 3,200 jobs have been lost every working day since the Prime Minister took office, that 4,000 jobs a week have been lost in manufacturing and that 40,000 viable companies are predicted to go bust this year? Will he also tell the CBI that the Chancellor's prophecy that recovery was just around the corner was last used by President Hoover in the United States in 1930 and that there can be no recovery until the Chancellor gets interest rates down substantially in order to jolt manufacturing out of the spiral of decline?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is clearly brushing up his green credentials by recycling old jokes. I acknowledge that there is concern about the depth of the recession, but I know that industry believes that our first priority must be

to get inflation down. In its meetings with me, the CBI has made it clear that it supports the priority that we give to that objective and that it has no intention of urging us to withdraw from the exchange rate mechanism. It is also confident that, as industry recovers from the recession we shall see a renewed, strong growth during the 1990s such as that which it praised us for achieving during the 1980s.

Mr. Forman: When my right hon. Friend meets representatives of the CBI, will he take the opportunity to remind its members of the Government's positive record in creating the framework for inward investment? Will he draw to their attention especially our success in securing about three fifths of American inward investment in the Community and about two fifths of Japanese investment in recent years? Will he also draw to their attention the contribution that that can make to pulling us out of the recession?

Mr. Lilley: I shall certainly do that. This country's success in attracting inward investment from all over the world demonstrates that we have created the most attractive environment anywhere in Europe for industry, especially manufacturing industry. That is why the most recent figures produced by the Japanese show that about half of all Japanese investment in Europe comes to this country and that we attract more Japanese investment than the whole of Asia.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Given today's latest figures which show that there has been a 97 per cent. rise in small business failures in the south and a 115 per cent. rise in business failures in the midlands, and given the latest forecast that up to 1,000 businesses every week could go under, will the Secretary of State, in addition to any talks that he will have with the banks, now speak up for the needs of the businesses of Britain? Will he urge the banks to bring down interest rates of 16, 17 and 18 per cent. as a matter of immediacy, or is he abandoning the small businesses of Britain just as quickly as the Government have abandoned the unemployed?

Mr. Lilley: I shall certainly ask the Director General of Fair Trading to investigate any anti-competitive practices in which I have received evidence that the banks are indulging, whether the evidence results from the inquiries of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or otherwise. I have received no evidence and no evidence has been submitted by the hon. Gentleman to me or to the Director General. [Interruption.] There have been allegations, but first we must establish the facts. That is what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Bank of England are doing. Only in the light of facts can decisions be taken.
I am aware of the deep anxiety among small businesses about various practices of which they accuse the banks. That is why I asked my regional offices to initiate a series of meetings—the first of which took place three weeks ago in the west midlands—between banks and businesses at which businesses could put directly to the banks the changes that they wish to see.

Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree, first, that one feature of the British economy is its slowness to respond to a stimulus and, secondly, that confidence is a major factor in pulling the economy out of recession? Therefore, does not he think it prudent that we reduce interest rates as soon as that can conceivably be achieved?

Mr. Lilley: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend on that. I accept the point that he makes. However, he will agree that the anxiety expressed by the Labour party about the level of interest rates is full of crocodile tears because it has declared that its policy would be to increase

Government borrowing, which would drive up interest rates, increase inflation and give greater pain to small businesses than anything that they have suffered in the past.

Points of Order

Mr. Keith. Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any notification from the Foreign Secretary that he intends to make a statement about the position of British citizens in Addis Ababa, in Ethiopia? I was contacted this morning by Mr. Paul Anderson and Mr. Nigel Comely, who work for a firm in my constituency. They told me that the situation in the capital is extremely dangerous. They and about six other British people have been trying to leave the capital, but there are no aeroplanes to take them out. They have suggested to the British embassy that they be taken to Kenya or a nearby country from which they could make their way to London.
Do you, Mr. Speaker, know whether a statement is to be made? As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is on the Government Front Bench, could he tell the House what the position is and reassure us that those citizens are being given all the help that is possible?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but it is an important matter and what has been said will have been heard by the Minister.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance about whether in the debate that we are to have on London it will be in order to highlight the fact that the education policies of Lambeth have so affected education that the official Labour party spokesman is transferring his child to a Conservative—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have seldom heard a more spurious point of order than that. If the hon. Member seeks to participate in the debate and succeeds, he can make that point. However, it is not a point of order for me to deal with now.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the Floor of the House yesterday, I raised a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can anticipate the hon. Gentleman. I have written to him on the matter, and I think that he will have received my letter.

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. Member read my letter to him?

Mr. Cryer: I have done so, Mr. Speaker. I accept that when I raised the point of order about members and the chairman of Lloyd's seeking to influence legislation in this place, the matter was hypothetical. I must draw your attention to the list of amendments which have been tabled to the Finance Bill. New clause 24 specifically provides for
carry-back of underwriters' trading losses",
which would directly apply to Lloyd's members. Therefore, the matter is not hypothetical, especially bearing in mind—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for me now. It will be debated in Standing Committee. It is for the Chairman of the Committee, first, to decide whether to select the amendment and, secondly, to make a decision on

the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I cannot foreshadow what the Chairman is likely to say about that matter. Nor have I seen the new clause.

Mr. Cryer: Am I correct in assuming, therefore, that new clause 24, which is not listed as a clause to be dealt with by the Standing Committee—indeed, it is exempted from the list to be dealt with by the Committee—will be dealt with on the Floor of the House? If the clause is debated in the House after the Bill has been reported, are you prepared, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement on the financial influence of Lloyd's?

Mr. Speaker: If that matter were to arise on Report when I was in the Chair, that would be a different matter. However, I cannot foreshadow what the Chairman of Ways and Means may decide if it is to be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House, or what may be decided by the Chairman of the Standing Committee upstairs.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I dealt with the hon. Member's point of order.

Mr. Nicholls: But I could not hear your ruling, Mr. Speaker, because of the noise being made by Labour Members.

Mr. Speaker: My ruling was that it was a spurious point of order.

Mr. Robin Squire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise a matter with you, Mr. Speaker, in your capacity as the guardian of the accuracy of the Official Report. In a debate on 1 December 1987 on the Education Reform Bill, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said:
Instead, it is to the Secretary of State's eternal shame that he has brought forth a Bill that will divide; that will set child against child, class against class, parent against parent, school against school, race against race."—[Official Report, 1 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 783.]
The hon. Gentleman added that that would "lead to educational apartheid." In the light of this morning's news concerning the hon. Member for Blackburn, of which we have just heard, will you, Mr. Speaker, investigate whether that is a true and fair record?

Mr. Speaker: That point of order seems to me equally spurious.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Opposition Members frequently raise points of order on the ground that Conservative Members predominantly should not speak on certain issues because they have an interest in them. Are you not fed up to the back teeth with that hypocrisy—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hypocrisy is not a word that we use in this Chamber. What is the hon. Member's point of order? I frequently get fed up, and I shall be fed up in a minute.

Mr. Howarth: I was making the point that double standards were being applied. On no occasion have Labour Members sought your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on whether they should speak on matters to do with trade union reform, when they are paid by the trade unions.

Mr. Speaker: The whole House knows the rule. On matters of public policy, it is always legitimate for Members to vote. When private interests are involved, that is a different matter.

Mr. Bob Dunn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice in respect of a sub judice matter. On the Order Paper for this afternoon is a motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition concerning the government of London. Police inquiries are now taking place within the housing department of the Labour-controlled London borough of Hackney. Will it be in order during today's debate for any right hon. or hon. Member to refer to the alleged corruption that has taken place in the London borough of Hackney's housing department? May we, or may we not, speak on that matter?

Mr. Speaker: As far as I am aware, no criminal charges have been brought, so it would be legitimate to raise the matter in the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 21 JUNE

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Roger Knapman.
Mr. Eric Illsley.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

Education (Swimming and Water Safety) (No. 2)

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Education Reform Act 1988 in order to make special provision for the teaching of swimming in maintained schools; and for connected purposes.
I am sure that the many hon. Members who are keen swimmers will need no convincing of its value as a recreational activity. It is of more benefit to a person's overall fitness than any other sport. It exercises the whole body and can be paced to individual requirements and development. It is particularly suited to children and adults with special needs, such as those with asthma and spina bifida, to choose but two examples.
Swimming is a health-promoting exercise that is virtually free from injury. It is the only activity that scores maximum points on the key criteria set out by the Health Education Authority for providing stamina, suppleness and strength. What really marks swimming from other sports, however, is that the ability to swim, and the knowledge and possession of water safety skills, is a critical factor in reducing the risk of drowning.
Research by the Royal Life Saving Society and the Amateur Swimming Association shows that, throughout all age groups, the risk of drowning is more significant for non-swimmers and that among the 10-to-24 age group non-swimmers are three and a half times more at risk than swimmers. In the past three years, almost 200 children under 15 have died by drowning, 80 per cent. of whom could not swim.
With the growth in water-related sports such as canoeing, water skiing and sub-aqua, it is more important than ever that every child learns to swim. In spite of that, many schools and local authorities do not have a requirement to provide swimming lessons, and the level of provision is declining.
The three national governing bodies of swimming—the Royal Life Saving Society, the Amateur Swimming Association and the English Schools Swimming Association—became so concerned about that trend that they formed a Swim for Life campaign, with the aim of securing the teaching of swimming by all schools. In 1988, the campaign surveyed local authorities and found that more than half had no clear policy on the teaching of swimming, while more than 80 per cent. could not meet the basic standards for the provision of swimming lessons. A more recent survey by the Secondary Heads Association confirms the trend and shows a further reduction, with fewer than half of 11 to 15-year-olds having any curricular swimming.
The inequality of swimming provision cannot simply be ascribed to resources or to the political complexion of a council. High and low-spending councils have been cutting swimming lessons. Unfortunately, because it is not statutory and can be cut without going into legal obligations, swimming is perceived by many local authorities as a marginal area.
The unacceptable and declining level of swimming provision is highlighted by comparison with other European countries. The French have a programme of building hundreds of pools and have introduced comprehensive swimming instruction, which is already


showing dividends in improved standards. In west Germany, every child leaving school can swim. In the Netherlands, swimming lessons are given to children aged seven or over, and there are standard tests to determine their ability. It is reasonable to aim for all British children to achieve at least minimal swimming standards by the time that they leave primary school.
With physical education on the national curriculum as a foundation subject, we have the means to ensure that every child receives proper tuition in swimming and water safety—not just those whose education authorities are more enlightened. The working group set up to advise on the form that PE should take in the national curriculum published an interim report in February, which concluded that
swimming is too important to leave to chance and should be an entitlement under the national curriculum".
It went on to make the strong recommendation that all children should be able to swim and possess water safety skills by the age of 11.
However, the Government are concerned about resources and have firmly told the working group to make recommendations which can be
realistically related to the general level of funding which can reasonably be expected to be made available.
At a recent conference organised by the Swim for Life campaign, the Minister for Sport clarified the Government's position:
There is no doubt that the ability to swim saves lives and provision of swimming tuition can be justified on this ground alone.
That is welcome; but my hon. Friend went on to say:
We simply cannot impose a duty on schools which they are unable to deliver".
That is a reasonable point, and clearly we need to consider the practical implications of a fixed educational requirement that every child should be taught to swim.
The Swim for Life campaign discussed that issue at its conference. A facilities consultant to the Amateur Swimming Association estimated that, with proper targeting of existing facilities and resources, it would cost £4·8 million to teach every 10-year-old to swim. That approach is sensible, as it recognises that resources must be allocated more evenly if there is to be a swimming requirement.
Clearly it is wrong that some children receive extensive swimming tuition and recreational swimming while others receive nothing at all. 11£4·8 million is all that stands in the way of the right of every youngster to learn to swim, that seems a small price to pay when measured against the cost of hundreds of children's lives. It is a small part of the multi-billion pound budget of the Department of Education and Science.
The ASA assessment highlighted the cost of not teaching children to swim. Every child who learns to swim then visits public pools, which gain revenue from the visit. Conversely, pools will lose revenue if swimming lessons continue to decline. It was estimated that, if every 10-year-old were taught to swim, that trend would suggest a potential gain of about £138·5 million—far in excess of the cost of the lessons.
My purpose in introducing a Bill to require all schoolchildren to be taught swimming and water safety is to promote the implementation of the working group's

recommendation and to ensure that the Government's concern about resources can be met. My Bill is similar to the one being ably steered through another place, with strong cross-party support, by my noble Friend Lord Norrie. It would require maintained schools to teach swimming so as to ensure that all their pupils could swim and had an understanding of water safety. The Secretary of State would be required to set attainment targets and programmes of study under the national curriculum. That goes beyond the existing requirements of the Education Reform Act, which leaves it to the Secretary of State's discretion whether swimming and water safety should be specified as part of PE under the curriculum.
I fully appreciate the Government's concern that finding the resources to implement the Bill could be a problem. The position is made worse by the fact that there is so little information about existing facilities. That is why my Bill would require the Secretary of State to conduct a survey of swimming facilities available to schools, and would give him the power, for a transitional period of five years, to exempt schools from the requirement if he were satisfied, on the evidence of the survey, that lack of swimming facilities would place an "unreasonable burden" on them. That means that rural schools, where pupils cannot easily reach pools, may be exempted. However, the Bill specifically states that every child must still be taught the principles of water safety and that such schools may be exempted only for the transitional period of five years.
The life-saving features of swimming also make it essential that children should be taught to swim to minimum standards. My Bill would require the Secretary of State to prescribe targets. The national curriculum working group has already recognised that by recommending that pupils should be able to swim a minimum distance of 25 m, possess water safety skills and have a sound knowledge of water—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Lady coming to the end of her speech? She has had her 10 minutes, but she may complete her sentence.

Mrs. Winterton: Thank you for the warning, Mr. Speaker.
In conclusion, this is a small Bill that will have a big impact if passed. It would be enormously popular throughout the country and is supported by both parents and teachers. In due course, I hope that the House will support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Ann Winterton, Miss Kate Hoey, Sir Hector Monro, Mr. Denis Howell, Sir Neil Macfarlane, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mr. Richard Tracey, Mr. Tom Pendry, Mr. Simon Coombs, Mr. Mike Watson and Mrs. Sylvia Heal.

EDUCATION (SWIMMING AND WATER SAFETY) (No. 2)

Mrs. Ann Winterton accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Education Reform Act 1988 in order to make special provision for the teaching of swimming in maintained schools; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 June and to be printed. [Bill 172.]

Opposition Day

12TH ALLOTTED DAY

Government of London

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. As many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate and I have no possibility of limiting the length of speeches in a half-day debate, I ask those on the Front Benches, and Back-Bench Members especially, to make brief contributions so that as many hon. Members as possible may be called.

Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the traffic congestion, the public transport chaos, the pollution, the homelessness, the filthy streets, the inner city decay and the unemployment which have made daily life a misery for millions of Londoners; holds the Government to account for the policies which have failed London over more than a decade; reaffirms the value and importance of a capital city which can realise its full potential as a manufacturing, trading, financial and cultural centre; and endorses the need for a Labour Government which will bring to London the benefits of constructive national policies on health, education and training, housing and transport, the spur to the efficient delivery of local authority services provided by the Quality Commission, and the establishment of an elected, city-wide, strategic authority which will give Londoners a voice on the future of their city.
London is not working. Our great capital, once the world's greatest city, which has so much going for it and so great a heritage upon which to draw, is gradually grinding to a halt. Londoners may not know precisely why things are going wrong, but they certainly know that they have gone wrong. No fewer than 67 per cent. of Londoners, as revealed in an Evening Standard poll that was published last week, believe that services in the capital have got worse during the past 10 years.
It is not surprising that that should be their perception: they see the incontrovertible evidence in their daily lives. They see it in the overcrowded, filthy, overpriced and unreliable tube trains that make a nightmare of their daily trip to and from work. I travel regularly on the underground, and my experience, which I imagine is rarely shared by Ministers as they sweep by in their chauffeur-driven cars, but which is certainly shared by millions of other Londoners, is that there are few journeys that are not disrupted by cancellations, delays or breakdowns of one sort or another, adding frustration and chaos to what is already an uncomfortable and unpleasant experience.
London Underground's chairman, Mr. Wilfrid Newton, knows well the deficiencies of the system and the desperate need for new investment. He has described the system for which he is responsible as "an appalling shambles". That judgment is almost certain to be confirmed by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report which is to be published shortly.

Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: No, I have only just begun my speech. I may give way later.
In the meantime, we are lumbered with the highest fares in Europe—twice the European average—for a system which is barely delivering an acceptable service. The inevitable consequence of a Government policy which requires London Underground to operate without subsidy is that it is compelled to try to resolve its problems by pricing customers off its trains.
Londoners also know that things have gone wrong when they see the traffic congestion and the pollution on our roads as the traffic grinds to a halt. The average speed of traffic in London today has fallen below 10 miles an hour. That sharp fall, which has occurred in the past year or two, has brought the average speed down to not much more than it was at the turn of this century.
Londoners know that things have gone wrong when they see the filthy streets, strewn with litter and disfigured by graffiti. They also see it in the cracked pavements and the derelict sites, which go some way to explain Mother Teresa's famous comment that London to her looked in many respects like a third-world city.
Londoners know that things have gone wrong when they see the housing crisis in the capital, which has produced record levels of homelessness. More than 30,000 households are in temporary accommodation, and 8,000 are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. There has been a rise of 300 per cent. in home repossessions in the capital, which compares with an already high figure of 100 per cent. in the rest of the country.
Londoners and visitors from outside the city have been shocked to see the revival of the shameful spectacle of young people begging on our streets by day and sleeping on our streets by night. We thought that that had been consigned to the Victorian era. That is the tip of a huge iceberg of unmet housing needs, which has produced the scandal of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and swollen housing waiting lists in every local authority with which surely every Conservative Member representing a London constituency must be familiar in his or her regular surgery. Unfortunately, it also produces the forcing ground for criminal practices such as those that are now being investigated by the fraud squad in Hackney.
Londoners know that things have gone wrong because of the swelling dole queues and the hopelessness felt by so many with no job prospects or opportunity to acquire the necessary skills. They know it from the boarded-up shop fronts and derelict factory sites, as London's role as a great manufacturing and trading centre is eroded by recession and business failures.
The facts of the recession in London speak for themselves. The latest figures for unemployment in London show an increase from 201,196 in April last year to 309,263 in April this year—an increase of 108,000 or 53·7 per cent. The ratio of unemployment to the number of vacancies in London is 26:1—the highest in the country. It is higher than the ratio of 25:1 in Northern Ireland and that of 9:1 in Scotland.
Business failures in London and the south-east rose by 109 per cent. between the last quarter of 1989 and 1990. Recent surveys of business confidence in the capital show clearly how business now fears even worse times. The London chamber of commerce survey for the first quarter of 1991 showed that, among the larger London firms, employing more than 250,000 staff each, fewer than 20 per cent. are operating at full strength. The Evening Standard/


Investors in Industry survey for April found that 94 per cent. of companies in the capital are likely to reduce, or at best maintain, their work forces in the coming year.
Londoners know that things are going wrong from the growing climate of violence and lawlessness which is the product of recession and hopelessness. It makes our streets unsafe and women afraid to leave their homes at night. The Evening Standard poll shows that no fewer than 69 per cent. of Londoners put their concern about the level of crime at the highest point on the scale that they were offered.
Londoners know that things are going wrong because the waiting lists for treatment in London hospitals are the longest in the country. They are particularly long in the North East Thames region—some Conservative Members who are present will know what I mean—where my constituency has the misfortune to suffer that problem, as does the constituency of the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert).
Londoners know that things are going wrong with schools, which are struggling with low morale and resources. They see it in local government services, which have been cut as a consequence of the poll tax, the imposition of capping and the unfairness of a grant system that has been skewed for political purposes. They see it, too, in the problems of the voluntary sector, so long one of the flagships of London's pride and self-confidence but now a further victim of the cuts imposed by the Government.
In short, Londoners have lost confidence in their city. That has not happened, as the Government pretend, because the Labour party says so or because we have chosen to debate London's problems, but because the reality of their daily experience confirms that life in our city is now difficult, bad-tempered and without much hope of improvement. Among those who share that perception are many who would not normally be counted as supporters of the Labour party. They include the editors of The Sunday Times and the Evening Standard and the European Commissioner for the Environment. They all agree that the quality of life in our capital city has declined alarmingly.
A staggering 46 per cent. of Londoners would like to leave the city in which they live. Only the most purblind of Governments would seek to dismiss that judgment and vote of no confidence by Londoners. [Interruption.]
Even aspects of London that have traditionally been its greatest strength are being put needlessly at risk. The City's role as Europe's pre-eminent financial centre is increasingly being challenged by other cities, notably Frankfurt. London's attempts to fight back are hardly helped by transport and traffic systems that are grinding to a halt. Journeys to the City from the major airports take two or three times longer than they should. [Interruption.]
In case anyone should take seriously the Minister of State's interjections from a sedentary position, may I make it clear that such concerns are expressed not only by the Labour party but also by such people as Sir Martin Jacomb, Chairman of Barclays De Zoete Wedd, and Mr. Stanley Yassukovich, the former chairman of the Securities Association. They are among the increasingly powerful and concerned voices who share the Opposition's concern on this issue.

Mr. John Gorst: Without in any way detracting from some of the hon. Gentleman's points, may

I ask him to try to put the problem into a wider perspective? Many of the complaints that he has chronicled can be found in Tokyo, Paris and every major capital city throughout the world. Are we not merely listening to a catalogue of the problems of living in large urban cities?

Mr. Gould: I am grateful for the tone of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I think that he is wrong. We have compared London's problems with those of other major capital cities such as Tokyo and Paris and of Frankfurt—the last not a capital, but an important European city—and our contention, which is widely accepted, is that London is falling behind other European cities in many respects.
The only example in which the hon. Gentleman has a point is one which I would adduce as a model to be avoided, and from which lessons can be learned—New York. I fully accept that what we describe as having gone wrong with London went wrong with New York some years earlier. We are determined that London should not go down that path. That is why we are holding this debate and why I wish to put these points on record. I want to assure Londoners that Labour Members—I suspect, to do them justice, that some Conservative Members share our concerns—are determined to avoid the fate that has befallen New York.
I was saying that even some of London's strengths have been unnecessarily undermined. London's traditional role as a great artistic and cultural centre is being increasingly put in the shade by modern European cities such as Paris, the very example given by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst). By contrast with the vibrant cultural life, imaginative new projects, stimulus to the best modern architects and attention to its built environment and riverscape shown by Paris, London has a cultural scene dominated by holes in the roof of the Tate gallery, the forced closure of the Royal Shakespeare Company for four months earlier this year and the withdrawal of funding from Tara Arts, a world-class Asian theatre group. Even London zoo is threatened with closure by a Government who are so short-sighted that they cannot see the point of investing in an institution which is a major tourist attraction and a centre for scientific research.
The pity of it is that London's great potential remains and could be realised. London is the first of our major cities to recognise the possibility of renewing itself by moving eastwards and redeveloping those districts which hitherto have been regarded merely as the casualties of its history. As both a resident and a Member of Parliament in east London, I can hardly say too much about the sense of excitement that I feel at that prospect. The shame of it is that the task of carrying out that redevelopment was entrusted by the Government to a development corporation, the very purpose of which was to exclude the interests of local people and which has now itself fallen victim to the very market forces that it unleashed.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: In my first six years in the House of Commons, there were many debates during the term of a Labour Government on how three Labour London authorities, plus the Greater London council, were unable to get anything happening in 5,000 acres of dereliction, absence of jobs, no housing and no prospects.
As to the issue of people wanting to move out, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) may consider adding


this point to his speech. I represent a constituency in the borough of Greenwich. It is the only place I know where there have been two polls about whether people in the outlying parts of Bromley and Bexley would like to join Greenwich. The residents of Thamesmead and the residents of Mottingham said no firmly. One of the associate factors is that Greenwich is Labour-run and Bromley and Bexley are not. It seems that the Labour party should recognise how unpopular it is in London compared with other parts of the country.

Mr. Gould: I shall deal with the state of public opinion in London in a moment.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the London Docklands development corporation, which had the benefit of the tremendous and, we know now, unfortunate property boom, has found itself unable to use the huge sums that it managed to realise through speculation to do anything about the royal docks. Therefore, we can hardly look to the record of the LDDC as a model for achieving what was set before it as a task to serve the interests of Londoners.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Does not the experience of the LDDC show the appalling failure of the Government and their lack of planning policy? The docklands district is suffering because there is no proper road and rail infrastructure into it. Do not the Government have a Singapore mentality towards docklands, in that they ignore the surrounding districts, turning them into a sort of third world? [Laughter.]

Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend knows a good deal more about such problems than some of the Conservative Members who are laughing uproariously.
London can provide the gateway to Europe and constitute the essential fulcrum for opening up to new markets and influences which will be so important to our national economy as a whole. That cannot be achieved as long as what the director general of the Confederation of British Industry describes as an
apparent allergy to strategic thinking
means that, in his view, it will be northern France, not London and the south-east of England, that will benefit from the channel tunnel and the single European market.
London's capacity to act as a magnet for the best and brightest talent remains undimmed. London has an unrivalled cultural heritage, which should continue to put our city in the forefront of European civilisation.
These high hopes of a revival of pride and confidence in our city can be achieved, but they have been needlessly undermined and betrayed by Government policies over more than a decade. Those policies have to a large extent been applied on a national scale, but they have had a particularly unfortunate impact on our capital city. They are essentially, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said a moment ago, policies of disengagement, of non-intervention, of unfettered market forces—summed up in one word: under-investment.
I refer, for instance, to under-investment in housing; insanely, London boroughs, like other local authorities, have been prevented from spending their own money on grappling with a housing problem which is ticking away

like a time bomb about to explode. That is just one aspect of this unremitting hostility to local government which has made the administration of London so difficult.
There has been under-investment in the transport system, which not only creates misery for those who have to use it but which presents a real threat to the city's economic viability because the deficiencies in our transport system act as such a disincentive to new investment in the capital.

Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the draft Labour Budget presented by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) contains no provision for increased spending on public transport in London? How much is he now proposing to spend, and has he agreed it with the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)?

Mr. Gould: First, there never was any such thing as a draft Labour Budget; secondly, even if there had been and if the hon. Gentleman knew anything about Budgets, he would know that it would not have included provision for public spending.
Under-investment is seen at its most striking in education and training, in the health service and in protecting the environment. This under-investment leaves London and Londoners ill equipped to face a competitive future in which other European cities are forging ahead.
In addition to suffering from national policies, however, London has suffered from a particular set of Government policies that have disadvantaged the capital in special ways. Londoners have suffered from the impact of the poll tax and the damage resulting from the imposition of capping. They have suffered from the skewing of the grant system. But foremost among all these acts of damage was the act of political spite which, with the abolition of the GLC, deprived our city of a Londonwide voice.
Ministers who argue that Londoners were glad to see the demise of the GLC misrepresent the public attitude of the time and fail to understand the mood of Londoners today. The Evening Standard poll shows that two out of three Londoners want a voice for London, with the great majority of them favouring an elected citywide authority. Only one in five favour making no change, yet, with unerring accuracy, that is the very position adopted by the Secretary of State, whose absence today is notable. It shows how little interest he has in the future fortunes of our capital city.
This is precisely the position that the right hon. Gentleman adopts in his consultative paper, paragraph 28 of which states baldly:
The Government have no plans to change the general structure of local government in London.
Jibes at the GLC are hardly an adequate response to the overwhelming demand for change and for a London voice.
Londoners know that it is nonsense that our city, uniquely, has no citywide voice, no one capable of taking a strategic view of the needs and interests that we share as Londoners or of the future that should be ours. They see the contrast between London and other British cities, each of which has a citywide administration. They see the contrast with every other major capital city in the world. They know, for example, that London's ill-fated Olympic bid could not be taken seriously as long as there was no one to speak for London. They know that to insist that


London is no more than a collection of boroughs that should be governed accordingly is to deny London's sense of community and identity, its history and its future.
As the Evening Standard's leading article put it on 28 May—I do not often quote leading articles from the Evening Standard—Londoners
look upon themselves first and foremost as Londoners—citizens of the greatest, most historic, most beautiful and most-visited capital city in the world".
That is why Londoners support our proposals.
In the hands of a Labour Government, our measures will provide London with the benefits of national policies for investment in the basic public services, and a priority commitment to the improvement of those services rather than to an increase in consumption through tax cuts and unsustainable credit booms. Londoners will want the benefits that will flow to a local administration from a Government who value the role of local government and who want to see boroughs fulfilling their proper role in building houses, protecting the local environment, helping, in partnership with the private sector, to regenerate the local economy, and delivering high-quality services.

Mr. Steve Norris: In the hon. Gentleman's great tour de raison of London, one issue does not seem to have been addressed. Most pollsters are aware of the London Labour factor, which shows how voters in London consistently turn against the Labour party in any national evaluation of opinion. A resident of Lambeth who looks at what is happening in Wandsworth sees clearly what is wrong with London. It is that too many London boroughs are controlled by the Labour party.

Mr. Gould: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is not the assiduous reader of the Evening Standard that I took him to be. If he had read with care and attention the poll results published last week on precisely this subject, he would have discovered not only overwhelming support for every aspect of our proposals but the fact that Londoners, by a margin of four percentage points—43 per cent. to 39 per cent.—support Labour rather than his party. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to make something of the difference between that lead and the lead of six percentage points that we enjoy in national polls, but I do not think that he wants to draw too much attention to those figures.
Londoners will especially welcome our proposals for a quality commission to encourage and promote the establishment and monitoring of high standards, which will be published and checkable, and for the provision for individual citizens of effective remedies if those standards are not met. Despite the Johnny-come-lately efforts of the Prime Minister to jump on the bandwagon, those measures offer a more real and certain prospect of efficient administration than can be offered by any Government who remain fundamentally hostile to local government.
Above all, Londoners want a new citywide, strategic, elected authority that will address the strategic interests of our capital city. They want a streamlined, professional, proactive, enabling authority that will take in hand the strategic planning of land use and economic development, the planning of our transport needs and the provision of our fire, police and emergency services. That authority will encourage our cultural life and will adopt an overall strategy to protect our environment.
Londoners have already responded to what we have said. They understand that we understand. We are offering them a compact for London. They want our policies, and

they want a Labour Government. In their response to our forward-looking proposals for the capital, Londoners have shown that they are ready, willing and able to play their part in electing a Labour Government.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move, in line I to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
`deplores the habit of the Labour Party to run down London in a way which, if taken seriously, would damage its image abroad, deter foreign investors and bring glee to London's competitor cities overseas; emphasises that London is one of the world's finest cities with cultural and business attractions which have few rivals, a transport system as extensive as any in Europe and international hub airports which are the envy of others; welcomes the decision of the Government to relieve London of the unnecessary and highly wasteful Greater London Council; deplores Labour's plans to establish a still more wasteful London-wide body with powers to control the police which even the Greater London Council did not have; welcomes the Government's enormous investment programme in public transport and in infrastructure in Docklands; and salutes the Government's achievements of the last 12 years which have raised Britain's reputation abroad and with it that of her capital city'.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning are abroad. I know that they would have liked to speak in the debate. However, I am pleased that their absence gives me as a Londoner an opportunity to say that I am proud of this city and will happily compare its facilities and attractions with those of any city in the world. I take seriously my responsibility to speak up for London. I deplore Labour's attempts to denigrate our city, to make nothing of its recent achievements, and to blow its problems out of all recognition. The Opposition are doing all that they can to deter the foreign investor, to destroy tourism, and to damage our capital's economy.
When people in Frankfurt and Paris read the motion tabled by the Labour party today, they will be whooping for joy. The difference between our city and those cities is that they do not have a Labour party to run them down in public.
How much more honest it would have been to have said that, yes, London suffers problems—problems much like those of other cities. But to refer to problems such as dirty streets as Labour does in its motion is to score a splendid own goal. People in Westminster do not complain about dirty streets, but people in Lambeth, Camden, Haringey and Islington do because there the Labour boroughs are failing to do their duty.
Many of London's problems are the problems of a successful city. Overcrowded tubes and congested roads are the sign of a city which is alive and flourishing, not a city on its knees.
How much more honest it would have been of the Labour party to say that most people regard our traffic as better than that in Paris, Rome or Madrid, or to say that the M25, although crowded in the rush hours, is none the less Europe's longest orbital urban motorway, which has made possible a range of journeys which people could not contemplate before.
How much more honest it would have been to acknowledge that London's vast underground system is 100 years old, one of the deepest in the world, requiring massive investment and today benefiting from a huge programme of investment of which the Labour party could


not have dreamt. It is all the more needed today because, during the years in which the GLC owned the underground, as the irresponsible populist that it was, it cut the fares and so cut investment too, which is now having to be made good.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Would the Minister care to point out to the House that the capital programme for London Regional Transport was under the control of the Government of the day via their majority in Parliament who were able to determine whether or not the money Bill was passed, and who, in preliminary negotiations with Treasury Ministers acting under Government instruction, told not just the Labour administration but the previous administration of Sir Horace Cutler that they would not allow the level of investment in London Regional Transport that successive GLC administrations wished?

Mr. Portillo: I am delighted to have drawn the hon. Gentleman to his feet. Those watching the debate at home will welcome the opportunity to be reminded about the government of London that we have shaken off, which is amply represented by the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will answer the question by saying that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) spoke throughout his speech of under-investment, but last year investment in the underground was more than double in real terms what it was in the last year of the GLC, and our plans are to invest yet more in the underground.
The Government have a comprehensive strategy for improving transport in London. During the next three years, London Regional Transport plans to invest more than £3 billion, supported by a Government grant of £2·5 billion—an increase of 120 per cent. in real terms over the previous three years.
Talk to people in London. They have seen the opening of the new Thameslink service and the refurbishment of Liverpool Street station. We will be opening up docklands and poorly served areas of south-east London with the Jubilee line extension, which will cost more than £1 billion. The Bank extension of the docklands light railway will open on 1 July, and the Beckton extension will open at the end of next year. That will bring investment in the railway to some £700 million. A Bill providing for an extension to Lewisham is now before Parliament. We are also committed to another vast project: the east-west crossrail, which will link Paddington with Liverpool Street, bringing substantial relief to central London commuters. We have already safeguarded the routes of the Chelsea-Hackney underground railway line.
Unlike the Labour party, whose recent policy document talks glibly of a transport policy for London that
takes traffic off the streets",
we recognise the reality—that many journeys and deliveries in London cannot easily be made by rail. We also recognise that massive road building in London is unacceptable. We have a programme involving expenditure of nearly £2 billion over the next 10 years, to make selective improvements to our trunk road networks and junctions and to get rid of the worst bottlenecks and accident blackspots.
We also want to get more out of the existing road network, by means of better traffic management. The New Roads and Street Works Bill will lead to the proper co-ordination of street works. We plan a 300-mile network of red routes through our capital, on which traffic will move more easily, reliably and safely. Journey times on the pilot red route scheme established in north London have already been cut by up to 30 per cent.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister may well be right in saying that journey times for commuter traffic have been cut on the pilot red route. Takings in the shops along the route, however, have fallen dramatically, by 30 or 40 per cent., and the local people do not like the scheme and want it to be scrapped.

Mr. Portillo: Clearly the Labour party is opposed to any action that may cause problems. A succession of Labour Members have objected to private Bills relating to public transport—because they have some constituency interest, or because they have been put up to it. Time and again, public transport proposals are presented to the House and Labour Members object to them. Here is a proposal to get the traffic moving—including the buses, which also benefit from red routes.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Portillo: Sure enough, as soon as a solution is advanced, we can look for the Labour Member who has jumped to his feet.

Mr. Banks: Surely the Minister remembers that it was the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) who objected to the last private Bill relating to London's transport: indeed, he attempted to talk it out. The Minister should get his facts right. There are many reasons why hon. Members may object to Bills. It is not that we do not want transport infrastructure investment; we want to ensure that it is the right kind of investment.

Mr. Portillo: I made no mistake in my facts, as the hon. Gentleman's remarks implicitly acknowledged. It remains absolutely true that many Labour Members oppose private Bills relating to public transport.

Sir Hugh Rossi: The question of red routes greatly affects my constituency. Two main problems have arisen. The first is the speed at which the traffic now moves along the red route, and the failure of the police to take steps to reduce the speed and the resulting danger. The previous problem, which was caused by congestion, has been reversed.
The second problem is experienced by a number of local tradesmen who find that parking bays sited on the advice of the local authority are too far from their shop frontages. Can that problem be examined?

Mr. Portillo: One of the great sadnesses in my life is the fact that I am no longer a Transport Minister. I shall, however, ensure that my hon. Friend's points are taken up. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport will be winding up the debate, and I shall draw those remarks to his attention.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Portillo: Yes, although I had better not do so too many more times.

Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) mentioned the problem of speeding vehicles. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that, in large parts of London, cameras are triggered automatically by vehicles that jump the traffic lights, and that the motorists responsible are prosecuted automatically. Is that not a substantial improvement in the policing of London?

Mr. Portillo: It is certainly a good idea for us to be able to enforce the operation of traffic lights more effectively, for safety reasons.
Let us look further ahead. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport recently announced a wide-ranging study of traffic congestion in urban areas, which will include consideration of the possible role of road pricing in London and other cities.
The Labour party lives off grumbles and dissatisfaction as part of its election strategy. It does not matter that in the process it may demoralise our capital and do it untold harm.
Let no one be fooled into believing that the answer to London's problems is a new strategic body. If people believe that the streets are dirty, let them look to their borough councils which have clear responsibilities and let them use the Government's Environmental Protection Act 1990 to oblige inefficient Labour councils to do their duty.
If people are worried about those sleeping on the streets —they can be seen in every capital city—they should know that it is the Government who provided the London boroughs with a special homelessness initiative of £179 million to enable homeless families to be permanently housed, and that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has worked tirelessly with the voluntary sector to persuade people off the streets and into the direct access hostels which are there for them.
If people are worried about transport, they should know, as I have explained, that transport policy in London is already brought together under a single roof in the Department of Transport. That includes the underground, Network South East, the strategic roads and the buses, and now those services have the resources that they need.
If people are concerned about the need to co-ordinate planning, let me remind them that the Government have issued strategic planning guidance in place of the prescriptive, over-detailed GLC strategic framework which took 11 years to complete. In contrast, the present guidance as produced within a year of receiving the London planning advisory committee's advice. It allows the boroughs greater discretion in planning the development of their own areas and communities. They have quietly welcomed the new guidance as at last offering them a chance to bring forward comprehensive local plans that will reduce the old reliance on appeals to settle planning applications.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Portillo: No. I want to keep going for a while.
As I have said, it took the GLC 11 years to produce its master plan and, when it finally emerged, inevitably it was out of date. It is no wonder that in those days the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) described the GLC as
the slowest bureaucracy this side of the Kremlin".
Meanwhile, areas such as docklands were left to rot, neglected by the GLC and the London Labour boroughs.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Portillo: I intend to quote the hon. Gentleman again. Would he like to save his intervention until then?
The GLC is unlamented and unmourned. It spent £1 billion a year, it increased its spending by 170 per cent. in five years, and it employed nearly 20,000 people. For what? Who misses its grants to the Fleet street and Media Workers creche, Babies Against the Bomb or the South-East London Women for Life on Earth? It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that the sooner it was abolished the better.

Mr. Dobson: I do not resile from either of the quotations. When the GLC was a major provider of housing and direct services such as that, it was far too vast and it was one of the slowest bureaucracies in the world. That was why I believed that it should be abolished. If the Minister had given the whole quotation, he would have realised that I wanted the GLC to be replaced by an authority covering the whole of London and with genuine strategic duties to carry out. Therefore, I am being perfectly consistent.

Mr. Portillo: I shall deal shortly with the vastness of the body that may be proposed by the Labour party.
The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) used to be the leader of the GLC. He said that he regretted that
the Marshall Report did not push and say, 'Abolish the GLC' because I think it would have released massive resources which could have been put to more productive use".
No wonder—

Ms. Mildred Gordon: rose—

Mr. Portillo: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I shall keep going.
It is no wonder that the Labour party is ashamed of the GLC.

Mr. Tony Banks: Not at all.

Mr. Portillo: I wish that the Labour party would get its act together. Whenever the hon. Member for Dagenharn writes, appears in public or speaks on the radio—I am surprised that we keep hearing him on the radio, given his track record—he has to say that the Labour party does not intend to recreate the GLC. Therefore, it is clear that at least the hon. Member for Dagenham is ashamed of it. Unfortunately, when the hon. Gentleman says that he is not aiming to recreate the GLC, he is right: he is aiming to create something bigger, more bureaucratic and with wider powers.

Mr. Gorst: Surely what my hon. Friend the Minister is saying is that, although there may be no objection to a voice and an intelligent head, there is every objection to a large body with the fat corporation that goes with it.

Mr. Portillo: My pleasure in agreeing with my hon. Friend is mitigated to some extent only by the fact that he has stolen the next two pages of my speech.

Mr. Gould: If the Minister is going to use the next two pages of his speech to endorse his hon. Friend's comments are we to hear another U-turn this afternoon and a commitment to precisely the voice for London which his hon. Friend commended to him?

Mr. Portillo: Why does not the hon. Gentleman merely be patient and hear my speech?
Let us look more closely at the recent Labour party document. In many areas, its so-called "streamlined" GLA would have more extensive powers than the GLC ever enjoyed. It would control the fire service, land-use planning, tourism, and culture, and it would have oversight of London Regional Transport and traffic movements. Most significantly of all, it is proposed to give the GLA authority over the police. The GLC in its day gave more than £2 million to so-called police monitoring groups. In 1983-84 it gave £8,500 to the Campaign to Curb Police Powers, nearly £18,000 to the Gay London Police Monitoring Group and nearly £30,000 to Camden Policing the Police. To those people it is now proposed to hand over authority for the police.
The lure of such new powers prompted the hon. Member for Brent, East, the former leader of the GLC, to summon a meeting of the GLC in exile to be held in the House next week. The Labour leadership moved in to crush so transparent an exposure of its true intentions and cancelled the meeting.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Portillo: I shall give way at the conclusion of my speech.
A spokeswoman for the Labour party said:
It was just an old boys reunion, if you like … I know they've never had a reunion before, but it was just an ad hoc sort of thing.
None the less, we were assured that the hon. Members for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) "completely disassociated" themselves from the meeting, although why anyone should disassociate himself from "an old boys' reunion" or from
an ad hoc sort of thing
is not clear to me.

Mr. Banks: The Minister is making a ridiculous fool of himself by trying to suggest that there was a conspiracy. The person who wanted to organise the get-together was Harry Kay, the vice-chairman of the council. I resisted it for a long time because I thought that it would be very expensive on my pocket to buy drinks for Harry and all his mates, but he managed to get Ken Livingstone to do it. Ken fell for it.

Mr. Portillo: The old boy doth protest too much, I think.
If people are concerned to hear a single voice for London, singing London's praises and promoting London to the outside world, bringing together the public and the private sectors, then I have some sympathy.
We had in London a single organisation of the London boroughs, the London Boroughs Association. It did not support the GLC, so the Labour boroughs took their bat home. They went off to form a rival body—the Association of London Authorities—thus ensuring that London's voice would be cracked and discordant. Across London, Labour's antipathy to the private sector, to the City and to the people who make London work has meant that it holds back from joining with the wealth-creators to promote London. Indeed, today's motion shows that it wishes to denigrate London, not promote it.
That same antipathy to enterprise has guided Labour Members in their opposition to the regeneration of docklands. They opposed the creation of the LDDC. They

carp about the immense achievements of the development there. They sing the praises of windswept, brutalist modern architecture in Paris, whilst attacking the beautiful fountains, parks, and riverside walkways of Canary wharf —simply because no bureaucrat in county hall had a hand in planning Canary wharf.
Despite the Labour party, other world cities look with envy at docklands as the area where the city can expand, a vast area where new growth can occur without putting an intolerable burden on our traditional centres.
If people want to know the truth about London, they should not ask the Labour party. They should ask the people who have money to invest. In a recent survey of American leading managers, 49 per cent. named London as their preferred European business location against 17 per cent. for Brussels and 17 per cent. for Frankfurt. London scored best on ease of access to markets, customers or clients, telecommunications, and the costs and availability of staff. It also scored highly on transport —yes, second only to Paris—availability of office space and on the climate that the Government create for business.
Can anyone seriously imagine that such people's propensity to invest in London would be encouraged if London were once again represented by the hon. Member for Brent, East as leader? Can anyone imagine that Japanese business men would feel more warmly about investing in London if they were met at Heathrow by the hon. Gentleman? Can anyone seriously believe that London would stand taller just because we put another layer of bureaucracy over our heads?
Can anyone seriously believe that London would enjoy the worldwide attention that it does today were it not for the fact that, after 12 years of Conservative government, Britain once again counts for so much in the world? London does not need another layer of government: it needs less Labour government in places such as Lambeth. Even the Labour party seems to agree, since it has now suspended Joan Twelves, the leader, and many of her colleagues.
In 1987, it was the London Labour party which first set Labour nationally on the skids for the general election. The London Labour party's proposals to recreate the waste and silliness of the GLC, and extend its powers to the police, are another albatross around the neck of the Labour party. Labour's proposals are immoderate, wasteful and plain dangerous. That is why I urge the House to support the amendment.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: No-one would wish to re-create the GLC in the form in which it existed. Let us remember that it was not created by a Labour Government. It was created by a Conservative Government under Harold Macmillan, in order to ensure Conservative control of the capital. In the debates and discussions that took place on the White Paper, many good ideas were suggested. Those ideas were endorsed by a broad consensus in local government, by academics and by the business community. But they were ignored in the legislation that created and set up the GLC.
From its beginning, the GLC was flawed. It was caught between being a strategic authority without the powers to perform that function and a body which overlapped and conflicted with the boroughs in the provision of personal


services. That was recipe for conflict. The personal services should have been the responsibility of the boroughs. It was nonsense to create an authority that had such a vast housing stock. But the Government of the day did not want to create a proper strategic body, because it would have meant surrendering some of the powers of central Government to people elected by Londoners, who might take a different view from that of the Administration of the day. That is why I spoke against the GLC when I was a member of it. It had completely lost its way.
Between 1981 and 1985, we made no pretence. We did our best with a flawed structure. In starting afresh, we shall not repeat that mistake. When I spoke in the debate which has been much quoted, I was thinking in particular of the metropolitan authority that controlled Toronto—one of the most successful cities in north America. Toronto has doubled its size and is one of the most attractive cities to live in. It has a strategic, slimline authority which co-ordinates and deals with major policy such as transportation, industrial regeneration, training and so on. But it does not get involved in day-to-day service delivery. That is the model that we shall wish to develop, explore and expand.
When I hear some of the old nonsense that we have just had to put up with, I wish that I had tape-recorded some of my conversations with Ministers when I was leader of the GLC. I remind Conservative Members that, as leader of the GLC, I met some of them in their previous incarnations when they were blocking what we sought to do.
When the Labour GLC was elected in 1981, we took up the legacy of Sir Horace Cutler to create a docklands tube by extending the Jubilee line out there. That proposal had been blocked under Sir Horace's administration and was still blocked. Within the first few weeks of the election, I went to see the Conservative Minister of Transport. I put our proposals to him. We were told that we could not implement them. It was not that we were asking the Government to give us the money—we were prepared to build the tube out to docklands out of our revenue.
The GLC was opposed to borrowing. Conservative Members who pretend to be monetarists might like to examine the accounts of the GLC. The only borrowing for capital works that we undertook was for housing, because the Government of the day were prepared to pay about 80 per cent. of the cost. All the remaining capital works of the GLC were paid for as we went.
During the lifetime of my administration at county hall, we almost halved the debt burden of the GLC in real terms. We do not want to hear this nonsense about profligacy. If central Government had reduced their debt burden by half in their 12 years, the nation would be in a much better state.
We were not in conflict with the City. The chambers of commerce and industry came to see me as leader of the GLC in the midst of another downturn in the economy caused by the Government. They said that they were straining, and asked us to reduce the rates that year by 7·5 per cent. We co-operated with them and did so. We cut the rates twice. Why were we able to do so? It was as a result of the success of our transport policy.

Mr. Terry Dicks: If we accept what the hon. Gentleman says, why did he and his deputies try to lie to the British public in the last years of the GLC and say that £140 million had to be cut from GLC

spending? The hon. Gentleman knows that his deputy was lying to him and that documents were shredded. In the end, the GLC had to increase expenditure, not reduce it by £140 million.

Mr. Livingstone: There was an internal power struggle inside the GLC Labour group. Fortunately, I won it. It was remarkably similar to the problems which are afflicting the Government today. They are in conflict about the direction in which they should be moving.

Mr. Dicks: The hon. Gentleman is a liar.

Mr. Livingstone: What we proposed—

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The hon. Gentleman is calling my hon. Friend a liar.

Mr. Livingstone: It will not be the first time or the last time, but I am not terribly worried about it.
We proposed a policy to use the engine of London Transport to make London more attractive. We cut the fares. However, we did not assume that that was all that had to be done. We wanted a programme for massive capital investment. We were blocked year after year by the Government.
We also recognised that, to be truly effective, we needed a completely integrated transport system. We wanted to integrate British Rail services throughout great areas of south London, and other areas where it was the main form of transport, with London Transport. We wanted to put money into British Rail so that it could increase the frequency of its services to match those on the tube, and reduce its fares to the level of tube fares.
I went to see the Conservative Minister of Transport in July 1981. I said that the GLC would give the money to British Rail to enable it to do what we proposed. The Minister, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) who still represents the Conservative party in the House, said, "If you proceed with that policy, we shall cut the Government grant to British Rail by an equivalent amount in order to invalidate it." That was simple, narrow, partisan, ideological opposition to what we were doing.
When people say that London does not want to go back to the days of the GLC, I say, "You have not been travelling on London transport." Every day, I am stopped by people on London transport. I am stopped not only by transport users, but even by drivers of black cabs, who are not usually members of the International Marksist Group or a natural constituency of the Labour party. One can hardly find anyone today who is dependent on public transport, or who drives around London in a car, who does not regret the passing of the GLC. They remember the first few years of the 1980s, which saw a reduction in traffic congestion and fares cuts, with a 5 per cent. fall in the numbers of commuter cars on the streets of London. Every taxi driver remembers that period, because they recollect being able to get around more easily. Industry was also able to get its goods and services to the point of production more easily.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Either the hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous, or his memory is failing him. The traffic reduction of which he speaks occurred


after the fares fair policy had been ruled illegal. What the hon. Gentleman is telling the House is simply not true—and he knows it.

Mr. Livingstone: The hon. Gentleman is probably confused by the fact that the figures were published after the judges ruled that our policy was illegal. We did not have long. We cut the fares in October, and Lord Denning stuck his oar in in December. It was not until January or February that the traffic statistics were published. When we cut the fares a second time, in 1983, exactly the same thing happened. Some London firms even cancelled their car and petrol allowances and gave their employees bus and tube passes instead. They recognised the financial advantages of doing that, as well as the overall benefit to London.
I urge those who say that Labour's policy will be an albatross around its neck that they should talk to Londoners. They should talk to the people waiting in a queue for a bus. They should ask people how much longer they wait today, and how much longer they must allow for their journey to work. I know from talking to people on buses that, whereas they used to allow half an hour to get to work, today they must allow 45 minutes. It is not all a matter of congestion, because there are fewer buses on the roads.
When a bus does arrive, because it is on one-man operation, it stands there causing congestion while the driver has to take the fares. That is a disastrous practice in a heavily congested and densely populated city. That policy has been adopted not to increase mobility but to achieve cost savings, and it was pushed through under pressure from central Government. During the five years of the Labour GLC, we resisted all further moves to one-person operation.
I was interested in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) about the quality commission, which will give citizens the right to challenge the level of services. I would like to think that we will extend that concept nationwide. I fail to see why only Londoners should be given an opportunity to mobilise pressure on local authorities when they are not providing a proper level of service.
It is clear from the faces of Conservative Members that they know that Labour's policy is popular. For the first time, a Labour Government will have the time to create a local government structure for London. In the past, local government reorganisation has been undertaken by Conservative Administrations, which I deeply regret. There has never been a system that accurately reflected basic socialist principles of efficiency.
There is no inherent commitment to waste in socialism. When we ran London Transport, we made it clear that no extra jobs were to be created in its central bureaucracy, but that that bureaucracy was to be scaled down. We saw a shift of resources into direct service provision. I want to see that concept applied across the whole range of Government services. The new authority and the quality commission will give us an opportunity to begin reconstructing London's government.

Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I welcome this debate on the government of London. We have been calling for one for some time to highlight the problems that exist in London, particularly in Labour borough councils.
The motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and other Labour Members is incredible. In its references to pollution, homelessness, filthy streets and inner-city decay, the motion draws attention to precisely what we and so many Londoners know to be the state of affairs in Labour-controlled boroughs. That is where the BBC and ITV should take their cameras. They should show that the problems to which the motion refers are not those of Conservative boroughs, where one sees waste bins, swept streets and the provision of proper services.
The motion refers also to realising London's
full potential as a manufacturing, trading, financial and cultural centre"—
as if Labour could achieve that. One has only to examine the facts to know that London has already attracted numerous financial institutions. There are more American banks represented in London than in New York. Some 270 foreign banks have opened offices in Germany, but 478 have realised the need to open offices in London. The sum of $900 billion has been deposited in the form of Eurocurrency in London. That is one fifth of the world total and equivalent to all the Eurofunds deposited elsewhere within the European Community. That is the London that we understand, and as it is understood in Europe and the wider world—on the other side of the Atlantic and of the channel. Tourists spend £4·5 billion each year in London, and some 80 per cent. of that figure is in foreign currency.
Labour's new policy document was rather appropriately launched as its leaders floated down the river a couple of weeks ago. They are trying to draw a smokescreen over London Labour authorities. Their vision of London is that represented by the Labour group whip on Brent council, Councillor Cyril Shaw, in his recent letter to the Labour members of Brent council:
We need, above all, to win back the confidence of the electorate, and that will not be possible if we are seen as a disorganised, undisciplined rabble.
The New Statesman is not necessarily a journal that is friendly towards the Conservative party, but in a recent article, it stated:
Labour local authorities have provided the sole model of Labour in power in the past decade, and many have given the electorate a good fright.
That is why Labour constantly attempts to portray London as a dirty city. As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, that is a disgraceful allegation. Labour is running down London in the eyes of the rest of the world, thus proving that it is so carried away with its public relations designs that it is prepared even to damage the reputation of our capital in the minds of tourists and foreign business men.
There are many examples of inefficiency in Labour authorities in London. In 1987, Brent council apparently lost £8·8 million in grant because it was five months' late in submitting budget details to the Government. Its failure to submit a claim for repairs after the hurricane in October 1987 cost it a further £750,000. Camden council, another model of Labour party control of a borough, has a startling record of financial mismanagement. Facts show


that the building department overcharged the housing department by £100,000 for jobs, some of which had not not even been started. Those are a couple of examples of how Labour party behaves in power, yet it is seeking to impose a further tier of government on London.
My hon. Friends and I have often cited disgraceful examples of rent arrears and empty houses in Labour-controlled boroughs in London. The facts show that those authorities have the worst arrears in council rents and the most empty council houses, which could be used to house homeless people and solve, at a stroke, the problems of homelessness that we see so close to central London. Brent, which was Labour-controlled until two of its members sensibly crossed the floor recently, tops the list, followed by Lambeth, Southwark, Hackney, Islington, Ealing before it became Conservative-controlled —the Leader of the Opposition may have voted for the right party in the May elections—Haringey, Waltham Forest and Newham. Those councils, with a little contribution from Liverpool, are the worst in the country and are owed a total of £135 million in council rents. That is a disgraceful record.
Education has been called the "big idea" by the Labour party. What would happen if London's education authorities were Labour-controlled? Presumably they would follow the examples of the authorities that are at the bottom of the league table and produce the worst results in Britain for their children, such as the unlamented Inner London education authority, which was close to the bottom of the league table, Waltham Forest, Brent, Newham and Barking. Those are examples of what we believe is typical of the Labour party's education standards.
It is perhaps an opportune moment to quote what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) told the 1990 Labour party conference:
our nation and our children deserve the best; from us they shall get the best.
As the press has revealed today, he is seeking the best for his children by sending his 11-year-old to a school in the City of Westminster, which is controlled by the Conservative party, and, as a new education authority following the abolition of ILEA, firmly intends to achieve fine results for its children.

Mr. Dobson: Has the hon. Gentleman considered what the city of Westminster intends to do to finance its education service in the next year? Is he aware that it has made no allowance for inflation, and therefore will insist on substantial cuts in its education service? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who lives just across the river from Westminster, some of my constituents send their children to Westminster schools, just as Westminster parents send their children to schools in Camden because, under ILEA, boundaries did not matter. Is he aware that a substantial number of my constituents have written to complain about job cuts in Westminster's schools as a result of the policy of the Government and of that council?

Mr. Tracey: That was a long intervention. The hon. Gentleman simply must talk to the hon. Member for Blackburn, who presumably is the Labour party's expert on education and who chooses, in the cool light of his own judgment, to send his child across the river to Westminster. Westminster has said that it will run an efficient education

authority. It will allocate resources to the classroom rather than to an over-fat bureaucracy, which was ILEA and the GLC before that.
While the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is on the subject of Labour education authorities, he might like to note that Haringey recommended that education authorities should establish full-time posts both to promote anti-heterosexual attitudes in education and to fight to abolish all laws and procedures that seek to restrict sex education to the promotion of family values. That is what the Labour party is up to in the classroom and in its education authorities—quietly, of course, behind the scenes and not too publicly lest it ruins any slight chance that it might have of impressing the electorate with its public relations programme.
We hear that the Labour party wants a Greater London authority—a lean and hungry beast, and quite unlike the GLC. The Herbert commission's idea of an all-London authority was for it to be lean and hungry, but that lean and hungry beast grew to have 22,000 staff and to spend £1,000 million. I suspect that this lean and hungry beast would soon grow into a rather fat creature similar to the GLC, which failed to be a strategic authority or to do anything with docklands or about traffic in south London. In 1964, the south circular road began its life under the GLC as a collection of signposts; in 1985, it finished its life under the GLC as a collection of signposts. Despite that, Labour Members claim that the GLC was a strategic authority. It took 11 years to produce a strategy, by which time it was out of date.
There is no earthly reason why any sensible person in London should want a Greater London authority. It would have little to do—the GLC was responsible for only 10 per cent. of the administration of London—and would spend its time producing motions about South Africa, eastern Europe and Northern Ireland, as we know only too well. That is not the voice for London that we want.
I should point out to the House an interesting comparison which I assume was made 10 days ago on television. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and I were presented with a film about Birmingham—a city which apparently has great civic pride and achieves great things for its people. Since then I have done a little research into Birmingham council and I do not believe that the people of Birmingham are too keen on it.
A new Greater London authority might follow the example of the Labour-run Birmingham city council, especially with regard to foreign trips for councillors. Birmingham charge payers paid for 149 trips to 31 countries, including Puerto Rico, the Gambia, Hong Kong, Japan, Australia, the United States of America, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and the Soviet Union. The most popular destination was France, with 29 trips by Birmingham city councillors. Cannot we just imagine that that is what the 100 slimline, lean and hungry councillors of the new Greater London authority would be up to? It is not surprising that when Birmingham city council funded a MORI poll to find out whether the people of Birmingham liked their council, it found that three out of four residents thought that the council wasted public money and only a minority were in any way satisfied with the key services.
Some of my hon. Friends want to speak in the debate, especially, I suspect, about transport matters, so I shall bring my remarks to a close. Londoners do not want another elected supra-tier authority. The Government are


inviting opinions from the rest of the country on unitary authorities. As long ago as 1979, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) told us that he thought that London should be run in that way. The people of London recognised unitary authorities as the best way to run London. That way, they know where the bills are coming from. The people of London feel that they get the most intimate and immediate administration of local areas from unitary authorities.
It is a great tragedy that when the GLC was abolished, out of spite the Labour party decided to take its bat and ball home, pull out of the London Boroughs Association and form the Association of London Authorities. The LBA is the vehicle through which we should unify the voice of London, transmit it to the Government and, when necessary, bring it to the attention of the wider world. The Government should consider restoring the LBA as a body where the leaders of all 32 boroughs and the City of London come together.
I have spoken to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Transport about transport in London. Travel and transport over the whole London conurbation should be overseen by a single Transport Minister, who would simply have the responsibility for travel and transport in London. In that way, we could move towards the kind of administration that our people desire for the smooth running of London. We certainly do not want our capital city to be run down, as the Labour party has run it down both in the debate and too regularly in recent weeks.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the opportunity for this debate. It has already shown evidence of the trouble caused when party politics overrides the views of Londoners.
In his opening speech, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) correctly stated the litany of complaints of Londoners about how degraded the city is. Ministers should not pretend that there are not abundant and regular complaints from Londoners about how awful it is to live and work here. But the hon. Member for Dagenham failed to deal with one of the chief complaints of Londoners—the fact that, where the Labour party is in government, it governs badly, wastes resources and gives a bad service. A MORI opinion poll commissioned in Southwark revealed that 85 per cent. of people are dissatisfied with services in Southwark.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: A Labour council.

Mr. Hughes: Exactly. London Labour councils are generally doing a bad job. If the hon. Member for Dagenham is to persuade Londoners that London would be better under Labour, he has a lot of persuading to do.
The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities says that it is terrible to run London down because London is wonderful and there are no problems, or if there are problems, they are all the fault of Labour boroughs. That is not true either. One of the obvious failings of the past decade or so has been the Government's failure to deal with strategic issues—a fact recognised not only by politicians but by many objective commentators, too.
In common with other hon. Members, I received a document today from Hillier Parker, one of the largest London firms dealing with development. The covering letter said:
Over the last eighteen months, Hillier Parker have voiced the property industry's growing concern that the near critical absence of any strategic planning regime in the capital is the consequence of a lack of London-wide coordination in local government".
Both the Labour party and the Conservative party pretend that they have all the answers. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) fears that, if there is a new Londonwide body, the councillors will get on the gravy train and start taking trips round the world. They may or they may not, depending on who they are, but that accusation, coming from one of the Members of this House, so many of whom float around the world at public expense, is a bit rich.
London is a city where no party has the support of a majority of the people. At the moment, the city is balanced. The Londonwide bodies have no overall party control. There is not a majority of London boroughs run by Labour, by the Conservatives or by the Liberal Democrats. Opinion polls have been referred to, but when opinion polls ask people which party they would support, no party gets a majority of the support of Londoners, either.
The hon. Member for Dagenham was right when he said that the latest poll revealed that 43 per cent. Would support Labour, 39 per cent. the Conservatives and 13 per cent. the Liberal Democrats. That represents the same sort of balance. There would be no overall control, because there is no overwhelming support for any one party in London, as is also evidenced by the votes cast in local elections. Last year's May elections in London followed the same pattern—the Tories had 37·7 per cent., Labour 38·7 per cent. and the Liberal Democrats 14·4 per cent. Let us be clear that no party can claim to speak for London.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is making important points about representation in London. Does he agree that the people who voted Labour in London would be outraged and astonished if they knew that only three of the 23 Labour Members representing London would bother to be here for the debate, and to hear the hon. Gentleman's important speech?

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for that last comment. To be fair, I must add that more Labour Members were here earlier, although what the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) has said is on the record. It is surprising, as the Labour party has mounted such a big campaign to persuade people of their commitment to changing London, that, in a debate lasting only three hours, called by the Labour party, so few Labour Members are here.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Where are the Liberals?

Mr. Hughes: I shall come to where the London Liberal Members are in a moment.
The Labour party has come up with a list of proposals, the general thrust of which is correct. My party in its present form believes, and the Liberal party for many years previously believed, in regional government for London. I do not know whether hon. Members have noticed one interesting fact about Labour's document. It


does not cite a single Labour authority in London as an example of good practice. Indeed, it cites only one council, the London borough of Sutton, and that is run by the Liberal Democrats. I have checked and double-checked, and I can find not one Labour borough cited as an example of good local government practice.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman cannot blame Labour for that.

Mr. Hughes: No, I cannot blame Labour for that, because Labour examples of good local government practice are difficult to find.
The London county council was generally well supported and well respected. The Greater London council, which was created by the Tories, was never appreciated as correctly designed. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) was correct to say that it was not the right size or shape and did not have the right powers. Like other colleagues, I opposed its abolition, because the Government did not produce an alternative. That is why we also opposed the abolition of the Inner London education authority.

Mr. John Marshall: rose—

Mr. Hughes: No, I shall not give way. I should like to press on a little.
We now have the chance of a review. The Government have said that they wish to review local government, but not in London. Everywhere else can contemplate having a different form of local government, but not London. That is the wrong stance and the wrong approach, because Londoners, as much as anyone else, can hold the view that their area needs to be reformed. Opinion polls show that a substantial majority of people are in favour of London having a coherent voice. According to the last poll, 67 per cent. of Londoners said that, in one form or another, London should have a single coherent voice.
The case for a strategic authority is well supported by all objective commentators outside this House. London is almost unique among the world's large cities in not having that co-ordination. Obvious examples of that need are regularly apparent. It is needed, for example, for planning London's transport system, instead of discovering that the land that is needed has already been sold off, so that land for a new railway or tube must, belatedly, be found somewhere else. We have not integrated bus, train, underground and riverbus services or planned such services with interchangeable tickets, and the inability to ensure that docklands is developed for the benefit of all the people of docklands, with democratic accountability, has shown the folly of policies that many have come to regret.
We must decide where to go from here. There are several examples of the weakness of Labour's document. First, it is clearly not yet Labour policy to provide any new strategic London authority with a substantial sum of money. It is no good coming up with a new structure without the money to finance it. Secondly, there is no clear timetable in Labour's document. Labour says that it will produce a new London authority at the same time as introducing devolution in the rest of the country. However, there is a strong argument that London should have its authority earlier than that, before the others. That is what Liberal Democrats believe.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Before Scotland?

Mr. Hughes: No, before any other region in England. Thirdly, Labour claims that the authority would be electorally accountable and, like me, supports the idea of annual elections. However, Labour fights shy of proportional representation and does not endorse the fundamental method of real accountability, which is to make the people who are elected reflect the views of the electorate.
Fourthly, the Labour document talks about boundaries, but it will be the Labour party that will decide the boundaries, not the people of London.
Labour's fifth proposal is the establishment of a quality commission. This is interesting, and it gives the game away. In 1990, Labour would have given the quality commission
powers to require a council to invite alternative providers from the public, voluntary or private sector to deliver a customer contract
if it was not working. However, the new document does not give any such powers. It states:
In exceptional cases, the commission would have powers to send in a management advisory team to a particular authority if there was widespread public concern about the breakdown in the provision of a particular service.
Although people could complain to the quality commission, the commission would not have the power to do anything about it.
Finally, Labour's document contains some wonderful double-talk about the City of London:
Within London, we will meet the party's long standing commitment to abolish the local government powers of the Corporation of the City. We will consult with the Corporation and others to ensure the ceremonial duties now carried out by the Lord Mayor continue and that other institutions of value are maintained.
When launching the document, the hon. Member for Dagenham apparently said that the City corporation would remain to elect the lord mayor, although it would not have any power other than to elect the lord major—how ridiculous. Either there should be a Lord Mayor for the whole of London or the lord mayor should remain in the City. I support the lord mayor being elected from the whole metropolis, but the issue should not be fudged as it is in the Labour party's document.

Mr. John Marshall: rose—

Mr. Shersby: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I shall give way just once—to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who rose earlier.

Mr. Marshall: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he saying that he would do away with the City corporation and with the lord mayor who is elected by the City corporation?

Mr. Hughes: That is a perfectly reasonable question, and I shall answer it as I come to the end of my speech.

Mr. Shersby: Will the hon. Gentleman give way briefly on the question of the lord mayor?

Mr. Hughes: Very well.

Mr. Shersby: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are two cities in what we know as London—the London borough of the city of Westminster, which has its own lord mayor, and on which body I served for several


years, and the City of London? Do the Liberal Democrats propose to abolish the role of the lord mayor of the city of Westminster?

Mr. Hughes: I shall deal with that quickly. Of course the city of Westminster should have its own lord mayor. Indeed, some of us in Southwark, where we have two cathedrals, believe that we should have a lord mayor and be a city ourselves, but that is another argument. I shall come to the wider issue of the lord mayor of London in a moment.
My colleagues and I believe that the principles that should govern local government include starting from the bottom up and ensuring that local government bodies reflect natural communities and that their boundaries reflect the boundaries of those communities. Government should be at the lowest tier possible. We should have parish and community councils in London. They are permitted everywhere else in England but not, for some reason, in our capital city. There should also be a strategic regional tier of government, devolved from Whitehall, with powers that should be exercised Londonwide but by a democratically accountable London body.
Between those tiers—here I believe that I carry with me the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson)—there is a strong view, which runs against the tight conspiracy of the Tory and Labour parties generally, that the present London boroughs are not the right size. At a pensioners' meeting in Bermondsey this morning, I put my view that, if we had a fixed regional authority, we could have much smaller boroughs, as used to be the case. That was met with overwhelming approval, because such boroughs would reflect the size of the local communities, whether in Holborn, Bermondsey, Camberwell or Southwark.
Finally, we must give local government the power to levy its own taxation. It is no good making local government dependent upon Government handouts, which is what Labour does, because, as the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is always telling us in debates about money, Government handouts depend on the economy being able to allow that money to be handed out, and there is no guarantee of that.
We should stop the dog fight. We should stop pretending that any of us had the right to impose our view about the government of London on Londoners. If hon. Members argue here that the people of Vilnius, Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania should have the right to self-determination, why should not the people of London have the same right? Let them decide. Let them decide where their boundaries should be. I read that the mayor of Croydon would like Croydon to be regarded as Surrey, not a Greater London authority. Let the people of Croydon, or Bexley, or Bromley, decide for themselves. Let the people, not the politicians, decide.
If the people want London boroughs of the present size or much smaller boroughs such as the old metropolitan ones, let them decide. I think that they would decide for a smaller metropolitan borough, in which government is much closer to home. If they want parish and community councils, Londoners should, like those in the rest of England, decide. If they want a regional authority, let the people of London decide that, too.
In answer to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and for Hendon, South, I and my party believe that the City of London corporation should be abolished. Then the lord mayor of London could be elected to represent the metropolis as it is eventually defined. Londoners should decide that matter as well. If Londoners think that the anomaly of an electorate made up of a few people in the City—business people and people such as myself still with a vote as a legacy of my days as a practitioner at the Bar in the Temple—is suitable to elect the lord mayor of London, so be it. Let all Londoners decide what the electorate should be. I think that they would decide that the present system is anomalous and out of date and ought to change.
I hope that Londoners decide that London government should be based in county hall and that we should not lose county hall to the private sector, which is now the risk. They should also decide the question that the Secretary of State has placed on the agenda in his consultation paper which we await: how should local government be run? Should it be run as now, when councillors elect a local leader, or should we elect for each level of authority a small number of councillors either with an elected mayor or five or six people elected to carry out the tasks of running transport, housing and so on? I favour a move in that direction, but let Londoners decide.
None of the political parties has the majority support of Londoners.

Ms. Diane Abbott: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Hughes: I speak for the hon. Lady too. The Labour party does not have majority support in London.

Ms. Gordon: Come off it.

Mr. Hughes: The Labour party does not have a majority in London; neither do the Tories or the Liberal Democrats.
Any party which imposed its will on London would be unreasonable and would create the same hostility and anomaly, and thus the desire for change, for which we have fought for the past 20 years. Let us have a fair system for electing the type of government that the people want, and less arrogance from the politicians.

Sir William Shelton: After the press conference of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), given while he was floating down the Thames, I was rung up by the press and asked if I thought that London was in crisis. I said that I did not think so; that Lambeth was in crisis, not London. I entirely agree with my hon. Friends that the way in which the hon. Gentleman rubbished our capital city was disgraceful, yet he had the clear support of Labour Members. It was wrong and does no good. It is reasonable to criticise, but not to rubbish London as he did. He spoke for 30 minutes and spent 20 or 25 minutes criticising London, but only about seven or eight minutes suggesting solutions. I shall come to them later.
I was a member for Wandsworth on the Greater London council in its glorious years from 1967 to 1970. They were glorious because the council was Tory-controlled. Even then I thought that the GLC and the Inner London education authority, of which I was chief


whip, contributed little and cost a great deal. Today, we have heard of a possible son of the GLC—a new Greater London authority.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), I was taken aback by the words that the hon. Member for Dagenham chose when he spoke of a lean and hungry animal, or whatever it was. As my hon. Friend said, everything that is lean and hungry gets fattened up. If the hon. Gentleman had said that the new authority would be neutered, muzzled and on a lead, we might have been slightly reassured. I certainly was not reassured when the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said that the Opposition would have the opportunity to set up this new tier of London government on true socialist principles. I just wish that every Londoner could have heard him. They would have shuddered at his remarks.
It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton spoke before me as much of my speech is along the same lines. I agree with him that the London Boroughs Association could become a forum for the discussion of Londonwide matters. I see no reason why that should not happen. There are occasions when such matters should be discussed and, presumably, that is the purpose of the LBA. Rather than build new layers of bureaucracy upwards, that forum seems to be the way forward. Conservative Members are trying to move decision making down to the people. For example, we have introduced local management of schools by governors and parents and have attempted to move decision making downwards on council estates so that residents take over their management. I am sure that that will be the trend for the next decade, rather than building tiers of government upwards at great cost.
As I represent Lambeth, my hon. Friends will understand why I express dismay that a Greater London authority may one day be Labour-controlled. Lambeth is absolutely typical of Labour control. Lambeth is cutting education, although I must tell my hon. Friends that it is not closing youth clubs, as has been reported, but merely youth centres, which will re-open in September.

Mr. John Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the shadow Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), is choosing to have his children educated in Conservative-controlled Westminster rather than in Labour-controlled Lambeth?

Sir William Shelton: I understand that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) lives in Lambeth and, I am afraid, that decision shows his good sense.
Lambeth council is cutting youth provision and social services, just to name a few. The automatic reason that the council gives is that its community charge has been capped. I am trying to find out the truth about that and I have had discussions. So far as I can see, the cuts cannot and should not spring from capping because Lambeth's standard spending assessment for education is £131 million. I understand that Lambeth proposes to spend £18 million less than that. I may be wrong, but that is what I understand, and it is difficult to forget such figures. The council is raiding the education budget for other purposes. In a recent debate, I used the phrase "raiding the education budget" and Hansard made it "raising". Lambeth is raiding, not raising, the education budget and capping has been blamed.
So far as I can tell from the papers in my possession, last year's budget in Lambeth was £285 million. This year the budget has been capped to £311 million—a cash rise of £26 million or 9 per cent. If inflation this year is 6 per cent., that represents a rise—admittedly a small one—in real terms. Why is Lambeth making enormous cuts? Every letter it sends out is about the cuts. It is as though it is flying that fact from the flag on the town hall—I would not be surprised if it did. The position is extraordinary, but I suppose it is due to the bad debts that Lambeth must service. If that is the case, I just wish that the Government could be more helpful in allowing us to roll those debts over a longer period, because it is damaging education in my constituency.

Mr. Shersby: Can my hon. Friend tell the House the level of non-collection of the community charge in Lambeth? From an election campaign in which I participated in Lambeth, I understand that a large percentage of people do not pay their community charge and that, before it was introduced, many people did not pay their rates either.

Sir William Shelton: My hon. Friend is right, but I do not know the answer to his question and I doubt whether Lambeth knows it. Many of my constituents have not received even their community charge bills for last year. Last November, some 14,000 first bills had not been sent out. I received a letter from three members of an extremely distraught household that had received eight different paying-in books in the space of 10 days, each with a letter demanding immediate payment. To put it mildly, there has been some confusion in the management there.
May I make a plea to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport? Consultation will take place throughout the country to seek the views of citizens and residents about how local government should be organised and what sort of local government they would like to have. Why should my constituents, Londoners, be denied that? We, too, have our problems. My hon. Friend may be aware of the massive move in Clapham and Streatham to return to the borough of Wandsworth, from which they were wrenched in 1965. I recognise that that is a matter for the local government Boundary Commission, not for the Government. Nevertheless, surely the constituents of all London Members have the right to be consulted about the construction of local government in London. That issue should be given some consideration.

Miss Kate Hoey: It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton). As one of the three Members for Lambeth present, I am sure that he would like me to mention that, today, all three Lambeth Members had a productive meeting with the new leader of Lambeth council and the new chair of education. What Lambeth now needs most is to be taken out of the headlines—[Interruption.] It would be helpful if Lambeth were now given a period to settle down under a new leadership and to continue trying to improve its services under difficult circumstances.
The subject of the debate is the government of London and the need for an overall strategic authority. We seek not to re-create the Greater London council, as was firmly stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), but to create a new streamlined authority to deal


with the problems which everyone in London accepts exist. As someone who chose to live and work in London, I am amazed that Conservative Members accuse us of not being proud of living in London. It is precisely because we are proud of living and working in London that we wanted this debate. We want to redress some of the problems that London now faces, many as a direct result of the fact that there is no strategic authority. We initiated this debate because we have pride in and care about London.
It is rather sad that, in his opening remarks, the Minister implied that this debate would stop tourists coming to London. Tourists will come no matter how run-down the city becomes, but we want tourists to leave London with a better impression than they have been getting recently. We want them to be able to see London as I first saw it some 20 years ago when I came to this part of the United Kingdom. They no longer see the city that I saw when I first came—as an artistic and cultural centre. We want London to be prosperous and to contribute to the prosperity of Britain. We want to put right some of the things that have gone wrong.
There will be agreement throughout London that, to achieve those aims, transport must be co-ordinated. Many Conservative Members know that, if they are honest enough to admit it. One has only to speak to those who travel regularly by London Transport to know that there are real problems.
A strategic overview is needed in other areas, too. I shall not discuss housing because other hon. Members will go into more detail on that issue and the problem caused by the increase in homelessness, the shortage of affordable housing and the necessity for people to move around in London. There must be co-ordination to solve those problems and to ensure that affordable housing is built.
I feel strongly about the fact that sporting facilities and sport generally are no longer co-ordinated, so that in future young people will have less opportunity. Who is funding, and who will fund in future, the strategic voluntary initiatives for sport and recreation? The London Borough Grants Committee which was set up to bring together grants for voluntary activities after the Greater London council was abolished, has failed to fund many of the genuine strategic projects, such as the London Playing Fields Association. The Sports Council grant for London, which was initially increased to get over the distribution problems when the GLC was abolished, has been reduced in recent years. The Sports Council expects local authorities to pick up the tab. Naturally, they are unable to do so and many developments are now being stopped.
Who will look after the capital projects in London on a strategic level? A good example exists in Southwark where, at Herne Hill cycle stadium, there were plans for a velodrome. This country is lacking a facility for cycling, but the cost will fall mainly on Southwark, which cannot afford such a strategic facility that will be used by people from throughout London and the country.
Who will replace the ice rink in the London borough of Richmond when it closes in 1992? Who is thinking about such problems now? Ultimately, because there is no overall authority to consider them, each borough is interested only in what happens in its little patch.
In the London borough of Epsom—[Interruption.] I count it as near enough to be a London borough. The

London Residuary Body is responsible for 70 acres of playing fields, including the Priesthill playing field in Epsom. It has been lying empty and idle since the GLC and ILEA were abolished, and no one is taking overall responsibility for it.
Although many hon. Members are more than happy that Manchester won the bid for the Olympics—hon. Members throughout the House will do our best to ensure that Manchester wins the Olympic bid—London did not even have an equal chance to compete. We did not even begin with "level playing fields", because we had no voice in the matter and no person or group who could sign the contract with the British Olympic Association. I do not think that is acceptable.
Therefore, this debate is about not just the issues that are seen as up front—transport, housing and the overall environment in London—but those issues that together make our capital city a great place where people can feel proud to be. We cannot allow the deterioration to continue. Something must be done, and the Labour party's proposal to recreate a streamlined Greater London authority is the way forward to that.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I agreed with the abolition of the Greater London Council because I considered it wasteful, extravagant and politically motivated. It was intensely disliked, and the very image of it is still disliked in my constituency. It had a budget of £1 billion, about £150 to £200 per man, woman and child in London. People talk about the community charge, but the GLC was an imposition on the people of London carried out by the then Labour Government.
The GLC also affected employment. In 1983, the London Chamber of Commerce survey showed that the cost of the GLC on London meant that employment had decreased when otherwise it would have increased. We have heard much about where the money went. It was not a vast amount but my constituents were irritated about where it went. It was spent on the Gay Police Monitoring Unit and Babies Against the Bomb—

Ms. Abbott: The right hon. Gentleman lists the same old things.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: The Opposition do not like me talking about this. They do not want it in the papers tomorrow.

Mr. Livingstone: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I shall give way to only one Member from each party.

Mr. Livingstone: Although it caused some controversy when we gave a grant to a group to ensure that the police were not discriminating against lesbians and gay men, it seems that our message has got across, because the Metropolitan police are actively taking on board those lessons and trying to eliminate prejudice based on sexual orientation. Surely the right hon. Gentleman welcomes that.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall give some more examples —the English Collective of Prostitutes, the Police


Accountability for Community Enlightenment—presumably, people go around shining torches—the Women's Peace Bus, and a marvellous thing that I do not understand, the See Red Women's Workshop. If anyone can understand that, one would be able to write a PhD thesis backwards.
There were cheers in my constituency when the GLC was abolished. As hon. Members will have expected me to do, I spoke in my constituency this morning and warned of the great spectre rising again like something in Dickens coming to destroy us.
It is said that the new organisation will be lean and hungry at the beginning—my hon. Friend the Member for Steatham (Sir W. Shelton) referred to that—but it will grow. It is to have two powers which it did not have before, involving health and the police. It reminds me of the old Lancashire tale of an illegitimate child born in the 19th century. When the child's mother was asked, "What is your excuse?" she replied, "It is only a little one." But it grew, and the new London organisation will grow in the same way—

Mr. Norris: Will my right hon. Friend say that again?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: Do I want to do it again? I shall do it in the second act. Others must read what I have said and then they can take part in the second act with me. I shall say it in less of a Lancashire accent next time.
The only difference with the new organisation will be that, presumably, the Labour party will try to convey the image of Glenda Jackson, not that of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who foisted the GLC on Londoners.
The Government must recognise three problems in London. The first is the state of public transport, which is in uproar. From my constituency 20,000 people a day use the underground. The number of escalators that do not work must be the highest anywhere. Londoners do not like the breakdowns and delays and do not know why the system cannot be made better. Public transport is a sort of strange quango which is responsible to nobody. That will not do, and the Government must act either by privatising the service or putting in more money. For 100 years we have lived on the capital of the Victorians. The system needs new lines and more expenditure and, certainly before the next general election, the Government will have to tackle the problem. If the money is not available, the Government will have to privatise the service and allow people to build other lines.
Yesterday, I watched the beating the retreat with some of my hon. Friends, and I recommend it to any hon. Member. One service that works in this country is that of the armed forces, and I shall not vote for any reduction in those forces because they are probably the best training ground in the country. Instead of putting young people in all the training schemes advocated by the Secretary of State for Employment, they should put them in the armed forces for two or three years and then they would be able to do something afterwards. Is there a spare general to take charge of London Transport? He should be told that he has two years to solve the problem or will go to the scaffold—that would concentrate the mind.
Secondly, there must be a voice for London. Whether that is achieved by bringing together the various boroughs or in some other way, we need a voice for London. Otherwise, hon. Members' views will be affected by those

of their constituents. There must be a voice to speak for the whole of London on such issues as the Olympics. Perhaps there should be an elected mayor working with the boroughs. That is a radical suggestion, and I must not become radical, or I shall worry many of my constituents and my wife.
Thirdly, we cannot have local government reorganisation in the rest of the country if we do not have it in London and the metropolitan districts. If that is a plot hinted at by hon. Members from both sides of the House this afternoon, I shall not take part in it. I shall vote against any local government reorganisation until there is reorganisation in London. My constituents in Brent did not want the last local government reorganisation. I mean no disrespect to the Government, under whom it was introduced, but my constituents did not feel that they were linked to that reorganisation. Even the name of my district is anonymous—no one knows where it is and Brent Cross and Brent Cross station are not within it. There is no Brent oilfield, there are no Brent geese, so they call it Brent. During the war, we took away the names of stations because we feared an imminent German invasion. We must have then thought that a Russian invasion was imminent so it was best if no one knew where their district was.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dicks: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) because he has been bobbing up and down and I am worried about his health.

Mr. Dicks: My right hon. Friend mentioned the financing of the London underground. He should be aware that the London underground authorities told the Select Committee on Transport that money was not the problem, and that in 1987, 1988 and 1989 the capital allocation had been underspent. Therefore, something other than money must be causing the problem.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: The management must be changed immediately if it cannot use the money.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about consulting people. There must be consultation about boundaries in London. If people are put in districts where they do not belong, they resent it because it is not right. If we stroke the cat one way, it purrs, and if we stroke it the other way it growls. Good government is when the cat is stroked so that it purrs. I would expect there to be full consultation in London on whether we should return to smaller districts, so that we can determine that people know their own districts.
The Government must do something about those three problems. It is no good merely attacking the Labour party's plans. If we tackle those problems in the correct way, it will help us, not only in London, but in the general election.

Mr. Tony Banks: After the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) listed the central office bê
te noires—those grants given out by the GLC—he spoke a great deal of good sense, and I hope that Ministers will heed what he said. He is the only


Conservative Member to have addressed strategic issues in London. He mentioned transport, the reorganisation of London local government and a voice for London. I do not want to do the right hon. Gentleman any more damage by praising him, but he was the first Conservative Member to elevate the debate and talk about the strategic interests of London as a whole.
I always try to stick by the old saying that in politics we should not get angry: we should get even. Unfortunately, I usually fail, because I am still angry about the abolition of the GLC and how it was done. I am now beginning to get the sweet smell of revenge and getting even because I know that there will be a Labour Government and a restoration of strategic local government in London. That is what Londoners want and it is what they had until 1986 —97 years of strategic government in London. We had the Metropolitan Board of Works, superseded by the London county council and then by the Greater London council. The new Greater London Authority will resume the process of the evolution of government in London, and Londoners will greatly welcome that.
Our capital is the only one in the world that does not have city wide local government. We all know why the GLC was abolished—because of the ideological fixation of that second-rate bigot, that authoritarian who inhabited 10 Downing street at the time. I well remember her predecessor saying how appalled he was when he realised that the Conservative party had committed itself to the abolition of the GLC. Londoners did not want that, and at the time not even a majority of Conservative Members in London wanted it. But because it was ordered by "she who must be obeyed" it was pushed through. Despite all the evidence against them, there are still Conservative Members fighting in the Thatcherite bunker, but they are out of time and out of place now—and they will soon be out of office. Londoners are looking forward to that.
Abolition was never popular with London. I remind Conservative Members that in March 1986, on the eve of abolition of the GLC, a Harris opinion poll showed that 81 per cent. of Londoners thought it important to have a single body in the capital to provide and co-ordinate strategic services; 22 per cent. of Londoners approved of abolition; 62 per cent. disapproved; and 59 per cent. believed that matters would be worse after abolition. How right they were.
The 1986 opinion poll findings are remarkably consistent with the latest findings carried out by the Evening Standard.

Mr. John Marshall: rose—

Mr. Banks: Two thirds of all Londoners are revealed as believing that London should have an elected authority. I support the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Brent, North of a mayor or a Minister for London, incidentally. Two thirds of Londoners believe that London needs an authoritative voice. The same proportion believe that services in the capital have got worse. So whatever the Government have done to deceive themselves about abolition and its aftermath, Londoners have not been deceived. They understand full well how badly services have deteriorated since abolition, and Tory Members deceive themselves if they think that matters can improve without a strategic body for London.
All informed comment agrees with me on this. Sir Ralf Dahrendorf, in his London Weekend Television London lecture, and Dr. John Rigg, of the Henley Centre for Forecasting, have given their unanimous verdict. They maintain that London is in decline, that it is unplanned and unco-ordinated, that it is dirty, and that it lacks a sense of identity and of civic pride. This last has all but disappeared in London. There is no focal point in the capital, and that is what people complain about so much. LWT's "The London Programme" poll showed that 50 per cent. of Londoners would leave the capital if they could, and only 39 per cent. said that they liked living in London.
We know what the major complaints are. The right hon. Member for Brent, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) mentioned one of them—poor transport. London's roads are breaking up and are riddled with potholes which are a danger to drivers, cyclists and pedestrians alike. The infrastructure of transport has been allowed to fall into dereliction through lack of investment. Belatedly, the Government are recognising the need to push money into transport. Every scheme that the Minister proposes for investment in public transport will be welcomed by us. We shall of course offer constructive criticism. It is rather late in the day, however, to be taking investment decisions that should have been taken over the past decade, but the Government are trying to rush them through now before a general election.
Certainly there is conflict between central Government and city government in Paris. President Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac are always fighting, but they are fighting over who can bestow the greatest prizes on the capital of France. They take great pride in their capital. London, on the other hand, has become a battlefield between the Government and the Opposition in recent years. We should be able to get together and talk about our capital. The Opposition remain ready to sit down at any time with the Secretary of State to discuss the reorganisation of local government in London; yet, as the right hon. Member for Brent, North correctly said, that is the one aspect that has been ruled out of the new proposals on local government structures.
We are prepared to sit down and discuss the best way to advance our capital city. We have to live in it together, so we should try to improve it together. The rest of the world's capitals organise their local affairs much better than we do. Ministers come out with a great deal of propaganda about how popular London is with overseas visitors, but they should read what is being said by many involved in commerce and industry, who offer many criticisms of transport in London, of planning in London and of the quality of life in London. All these factors are taken into account when business people are deciding whether to locate their financial enterprises here. We are losing out badly to cities such as Frankfurt and Paris because their administrations understand what is needed and do not operate on the ad hoc planning approach adopted by our Government.
The confusion and delay surrounding the route of the channel tunnel to London perhaps sums up best the lack of strategic thinking by the Government. The French have managed to get it right, but we are still dithering. I know that there are many political considerations—how, for instance, to avoid marginal Conservative constituencies—but this is no way to plan the south-east's major transport investment decision.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the document on London published by the Labour party, it is clear that the first action that his party would take would be to postpone any decision on the channel tunnel rail link for six months?

Mr. Banks: That refers to six months from our election, so as to ensure that decisions that will affect the economic life of this country for decades to come are based on strategic considerations, not narrow party considerations such as those that the Government adopt in respect of the route from Folkestone to London and of the siting of the second channel tunnel station.
Labour's commitment to restoring an elected strategic body for London will be welcomed by a majority of Londoners. I am proud to say that I will be fighting the election in Newham and around London on the policy paper launched by the Leader of the Opposition a couple of weeks ago. The Greater London authority will not be the GLC—why should it be? London's strategic government has evolved in 97 years—that is, until the decision to abolish the GLC. When we restore such a body after the next election, everyone will appreciate that abolition was nothing more than an aberration in the flow of London's history. The great majority of Londoners will welcome the new Greater London authority.
I share the disappointment expressed by the right hon. Member for Brent, North that our document does not mention the possibility of a directly elected London mayor, which is an idea whose time has come. It captures the imagination of Londoners, and I for one will continue to campaign for the proposal to be put to the House for debate—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham seems to be suggesting that I might put my name forward as a candidate for such a post, although I understand that there will be competition from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). That is fine by me; it is the sort of constructive competition that the next Labour Government will bring to the affairs of London.
I was also delighted to see that our document restates the need to abolish the City of London. It is about time that that anachronistic local government set-up was abolished. It makes no great sense. The Government have simply used the City as an overall strategic authority. It has been given many functions and powers that extend well beyond its limits of one square mile. In any rational examination of the structure of local Government in London, we shall say, as Mr. Gladstone said, that it is about time the City of London was abolished. I hope that we shall retain the ancient and honourable office of Lord Mayor of London, however. To my colleagues who think that I am being rather reactionary, I say that the office of Lord Mayor predates capitalism. It is worth preserving, but it should be preserved in the context of a directly elected Lord Mayor of London.
At about midnight on 31 March 1986 I performed my last duty as the last chairman of the Greater London Council. It predated my removal of all the silver from County Hall and it was the lowering of the GLC standard.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The flag got stuck.

Mr. Banks: Of course it got stuck. Fate did not want to see it lowered; it wanted to preserve the GLC.
The flag was lowered to the strains of Nimrod, from Elgar's Enigma Variations. It was a moving occasion at which I said:
Tonight is an occasion for happiness tinged with only a little sadness. We are celebrating 97 years of service to London and doing it in a way only the GLC could organise—with music, with colour and with friendship. In that spirit I ask you to salute the Greater London Council and look forward with me in total confidence to its early return.
I look forward to returning to county hall to see the flag raised again to celebrate the first meeting of the Greater London authority. I shall rejoice on that evening, and I suggest that the majority of Londoners will rejoice with me.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, not as a transport expert but as a regular user of British rail and London underground and as a regular recipient of many letters of complaint about what purports to be a public service. For those reasons, I welcome all the more the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and his ministerial team to promote a more responsive and efficient transport system for London.
The initiative comes at a time when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has advanced the pioneering concept of a citizens' charter. I was most interested to hear an apparent endorsement of that by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). Under that charter, the citizen will at last be able to seek some redress when a public service fails to live up to expected standards. In an increasingly consumer-oriented society, passengers, in common with patients and pupils, will no longer put up with a take-it-or-leave-it attitude.
To improve the situation, two underlying problems must be tackled. They are finance and management. The current record level of public investment is essential, whatever the future structure of the respective systems. The increasing interest of the private sector in ancillary activities is to be welcomed, and I hope that the Government will continue to explore the radical possibilities of franchising rolling stock, track and even the staffing of parts of the system. The prospect of privatisation, even though it is not welcomed by the Opposition, concentrates minds wonderfully in the short term, and in the longer term privatisation will lead to much-needed private capital to provide the system that will be needed in the next century.
In terms of management, it is difficult to avoid a litany of anecdotal evidence heard when passengers gather to swap horror stories. It is all very well to publish plans for reorganising Network SouthEast, but the only issue that matters is whether the passenger perceives that he is receiving a better service. In that context, I shall quote from some letters from the previous chairman of British Rail in response to my representations about constituents' problems.
On reliability, I was told:
locomotives do not, sadly, have a very good performance record … maintenance had, regrettably, fallen into arrears due to an unusually high number of … trains operating elsewhere in Network SouthEast requiring tyre damage repairs following the autumn leaf fall.
That explanation is reminiscent of one that I missed this year, when British Rail complained about the wrong type of snow.
On overcrowding, I was told that it was
not an uncommon practice throughout Network SouthEast for some passengers electing to stand for the whole journey, rather than wait for a later service on which they could travel in comfort.
Those letters are as disturbing in tone as they are in content. On top of those complacent platitudes, customers have to tolerate price increases and deplorable standards of cleanliness and comfort. A problem of attitude pervades the whole management system, and unless it is firmly tackled, there is no hope at all of the culture changing. I shall give some other examples.
In December 1990, the director SouthWest wrote an unsolicited letter to me and other hon. Members with constituency interests reminding us that the current timetable would expire in May 1991. Subsequent events showed that he was hoist by his own petard.
After a few months overseas in a military capacity in which such incompetence would not be tolerated, I arrived at Waterloo to catch a specific train and was told that it had been cancelled, not just for that day but for the duration of the very timetable that had been publicised and sent to me. On the same day I was unable to find a member of the platform staff who could explain from the same timetable how trains apparently left Clapham junction before they had arrived from Waterloo.
The next matter is a master stroke. The open-ended return ticket, vital for people with an irregular pattern of train travel, was removed. I asked BR to explain and it said in a letter—if I can find it—

Mr. Tony Banks: I nodded off there.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I shall try to awaken the hon. Gentleman.
British Rail said:
Network SouthEast loses an estimated £30 million through fraud and ticketless travel every year … a major chink in our armour in the past is the misuse of return tickets valid for more than one day. A ticket that is not stamped or collected could be repeatedly used, resulting in significant revenue losses.
It beggars belief that the genuine needs of consumers can so readily be brushed aside. Surely the right question for British Rail to ask was how it could spend £30 million on sophisticated electronic equipment to ensure that it can move towards the elimination of fraud. Hon. Members may think that those are petty examples, but added together, they represent a deep malaise in the transport system.
The Northern line is often referred to as the most embarrassing part of the London underground or, more colloquially, as the misery line. That line has its depot and two stations in my constituency. I await the report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and I hope that the Minister can give us some encouragement about a major and long overdue upgrading of that line. My beleaguered constituents are desperate for some good news.
The Opposition make great play of their concern for public transport, and in that context I have an anecdote which I am sure the hon. Member for Newham, South-West (Mr. Banks) will appreciate. In November, the Northern line celebrated its centenary, and there was much to look back on with pride. It is the oldest electric tube system in the world and had the longest tunnel of its type

until the channel tunnel was built. More importantly, that celebration was an opportunity for hon. Members interested in the welfare of their constituents to meet the Northern line managers to discuss the problems of demand exceeding supply, of crime on trains and platforms, and on the issue of safety which rightly concerns the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
What was the response of the local Labour party, flushed with success at winning control of Merton council for the first time? It boycotted the entire proceedings. That is typical of Labour's posturings and its total lack of practical and positive measures.
A familiar expression of the late Airey Neave was: "There's work to be done." I have enormous faith in the ability of my hon. Friend and his colleagues to tackle the problems of public transport, both British Rail and London Underground, by applying the necessary impetus in all meanings of that word.

Ms. Diane Abbott: Like the Minister, I am a Londoner. I was born in London, I went to school in London, I was a London councillor, and now I am proud to be a London Member of Parliament. It has been noticeable in the debate how Conservative Members, with the single exception of the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), have missed the point. None has talked about the strategic issue. Instead, we have had the same old anecdotes about Labour councils and Labour looniness.
No one pretends that London Labour councils do not have their problems and management difficulties. In Hackney, we have just uncovered a serious housing scandal. I take the opportunity this afternoon to congratulate the new director of housing in Hackney, Bernard Crofton, who has worked hard with a new team to uncover the scandal and turn the situation round. All of us in Hackney concerned with the issue are giving him every support.
I have served as a London Labour Member of Parliament, but I have also served on a Tory-led council. Corruption and mismanagement are not the exclusive preserve of London Labour councils. Despite all that London Labour councils may have done, none has sunk so low as Westminster city council under Lady Shirley Porter, who sold cemeteries for 5p a time. Anyone who wants to hear what people think of Tory councils, their values, morals and commitments, should talk to the relatives of those buried in those cemeteries and saw them peddled to property dealers and overrun by weeds in the pursuit of market values and enterprise. That is what Tory local government amounts to—peddling the dead.
Conservative Members and the Minister have talked about the attractions of London for business, particularly American business. It is true that American businesses wish to come here rather than go to Brussels or Frankfurt, and the main reason for that is language. No Labour Member argues that London is not still an attractive place to live for the rich. The question is what sort of a place London is becoming for the poor and those on middle incomes.
I have lived in London all my life, and I think that one of London's strengths compared with cities such as New York and Washington is that London has always had a


high degree of social and racial integration. In New York and Washington, the rich and the white community live in fear behind stockades. Even today, after 12 years of Tory Government, even after the disturbances that we saw at the beginning of the decade, London is still a remarkably integrated city, where people of all colours and creeds can live side by side.
London Labour authorities, with all their faults, did much during the 1980s to hold London together; to make it a city in which people can walk up and down through many communities in a way which cannot be done in New York or Washington. Whatever people may say about the Labour party in London, inasmuch as we helped to hold London together as an integrated city, we did a service to London. One can see what could have happened to London if one crosses the Atlantic and visits New York and other American cities which are divided by class and race; cities where people cannot leave their neighbourhoods without being in fear of their lives. That is the truth.
That is an issue which Conservative Members do not wish to address. London Conservative Members in their entirety speak from their suburban fastnesses; they speak ridden by suburban bigotry. But the pride and strength of London has always been that it is a city to which people can come from all over the country and from all over the world and in which they can live, work and go to school together, in the knowledge that their children and grandchildren can go as far as they want to go. That is the strength of London. London is a melting pot, and that is something to which the Labour party is committed, as the Conservative party has never been. Conservative Members speak for the suburbs, for bigotry and for people who do not understand what has made London for centuries a magnet for people throughout the world.

Mr. John Bowis: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Abbott: No; others wish to speak, and I want to complete my few remarks.
When we talk about what London Labour-controlled authorities may have done wrong, we should also bear in mind what they did right. They have helped to keep London an integrated city, a city which, despite all its problems, is remarkable for the way in which people can live side by side.
Conservative Members can repeat their central office list of loony grants until they are blue in the face, but it is always the same list; they never produce new examples. But anyone who lives and works in London will talk about the sad decline of London during the past 12 years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said, cab drivers are not natural Labour voters, but they are the first to say how they regret the lack of investment in London's transport, which has led to London's roads seizing up.
Nobody who knows London and who uses London transport—unlike Conservative Members can have failed to notice how London has declined into a shabbier, seedier and sadder place in the past decade. As a proud Londoner, I think that that is very sad indeed. No central office propaganda, no sneers at the London Labour party, can deny the evidence of people's own eyes. Under a Conservative Government, London has suffered from systematic neglect.

Mr. Bowis: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Abbott: I must complete my remarks, because the Front-Bench spokesmen wish to speak.
It is easy—it is not a temptation which Conservative Members find easy to resist—to sneer at what London local authorities may have done wrong in the past. But I want to take this opportunity to talk about what they have done right in the past. I think it was the Minister who asked what anybody who came into the debate this afternoon might think. Anyone who came into the debate this afternoon and looked at London Conservative Members would see that, without exception, they are middle-aged, grey-faced and grey-suited men. London Labour Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]—three quarters of London Labour Members were here at the beginning of the debate—represent London in all its variety.
The London Labour party may have its faults, but that is because London has its faults. The London Labour party may be a difficult and turbulent party, but since mediaeval times, London has been a difficult and turbulent city. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Edmonton may laugh, but we were at school together. I am a grammar school girl made good and he is a grammar school boy gone to the bad—

Mr. Portillo: That is a gross calumny on my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn). I represent Enfield.

Ms. Abbott: But we are both in a funny way an example of what can happen to the children of people who come to London from far away.
In this debate, I have risen to be a voice from beyond the suburbs, beyond people carping about their rates, beyond people complaining about these blacks and these women, and to talk for the spirit of London. Since mediaeval times, it has been a dangerous, dirty and difficult city, but, above all, it has been a city of contrasts; a city to which people come from all over the world to live side by side.
If there is one crime that Conservative Members have committed, it is not their sad neglect of the city or the public sector, but the fact that they insist on speaking up for parochialism and for the inward-looking. They have never caught the spirit of this great city. For all its faults, the London Labour party has always done that. That is why any strategic authority will have a Labour majority. That is why the London Labour party still, in its variety and with its energy, speaks for London, and we will speak for London still.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I am glad to have been in the Chamber for the past 10 minutes to listen to the moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott). She is a black woman who was born in London and can speak movingly about our capital city. I loathed the patronising interruptions and mockery of Conservative Members during her speech.
Apart from that behaviour, this has been a good debate, but, as people say about football matches, it has been a debate of two halves. Opposition Members have made thoughtful contributions, but, with the significant exception of the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson)—who has left the Chamber in case I embarrass


him—there have not been many thoughtful contributions from the Conservative Benches. They have consisted of the usual old rigmarole of slagging off the Labour party in London.
In his opening speech, the Minister seemed like Dr. Pangloss himself. "All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds" was his message. The only cloud on the horizon in London was the London Labour party, which was causing all the trouble. The Government claim that what the Labour party is saying in the motion could damage London's image abroad. All that we are doing is telling the truth about what is happening in London. Nothing could do more harm to London than a recitation of the facts. No words of mine could compare with the bad impression that foreign visitors may get when they come here occasionally, or the bad impression that Londoners get every day from the evidence of their own eyes: the unswept streets and the uncollected rubbish. [HON. MEMBERS: "In Labour authorities."] It is not Labour authorities.

Mr. Portillo: Westminster is fine.

Mr. Dobson: I invite the Minister to walk from my constituency in Camden into the neighbouring part of Westminster—provided that the council has not been warned in advance so that it can fix it—and tell me, judging by the state of the streets, which borough he is in. Most of the time he would not be able to tell the difference. It is not the fault of Labour councils that countless homeless people are huddled in shop doorways and public parks. It is not the fault of Labour councils that beggars collect outside the British museum and Buckingham palace. It is not the fault of Labour councils that sick people have to queue for health care in hospital out-patient departments.
When the Labour party speaks out on these matters, it is giving voice to the views of Londoners. We must say it, because the London Tories dare not tell the truth. They apparently will not accept the evidence of their eyes and ears. They will not speak up for London. Most Londoners want to live in this great city. They are proud to be Londoners. Most of them were born and grew up here. Moved here because they wanted to do so. There are attractions to living in a big city. The buzz and bustle, the excitement and, to some extent, the danger of big-city living attract people. Most people in London want to stay, or would want to provided that they were guaranteed a better quality of life.
The demands of Londoners are not outrageous. They want a decent home that they can afford; they want to feel safe when they walk the streets at night, and to sleep safe in their beds. They want good-quality health care for themselves and their families. They want good schools for their children. They want secure jobs with decent pay. They want to travel in clean, cheap, punctual transport. Nearly 50 per cent. of Londoners say that they would like to leave London, not because they are tired of London, but because they are tired of the circumstances in which they are expected to live and because basic services are not available.
In this great city last year, 37,000 of our fellow citizens were officially accepted as homeless.

Mr. John Bowis: rose—

Mr. Dobson: I shall not give way, because I do not have time.
In London, 17,000 owner-occupiers had their houses repossessed because they could not afford to make their mortgage repayments. Tonight, 33,000 of our fellow citizens are living in bed-and-breakfast or hostel accommodation. If Conservative Members want to carry the country with them when they talk about improving people's health, they will have to improve the health of the people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
In a report about my constituency, doctors mildly say:
It is difficult to maintain hygiene while washing, eating and sleeping in one overcrowded room.
Indeed it is. They talk of high levels of gastroenteritis, skin disorders and chest infections. They say that the rates of accidents involving children are high, owing to the combination of a lack of space and hazards, such as kettles, on the floor of the room. The report is not about a third-world city such as Calcutta. It is about London now, and the circumstances in which our fellow citizens are expected to live.
Last year, in this city of 7 million people, only 363 council houses were started. None of them was in Camden, Islington, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Hammersmith and Fulham or Lambeth. Wandsworth—the Tories' favourite place—went literally one better: it started one council house. In 1978, the year before the Government took office, 13,000 council houses were started for people who needed homes. That means that last year only one council house was started for every 36 that were started in 1978.
One reason for that is the cost of land, which is high because it has been driven up by property speculation. Property speculators are driving out our local communities. To convince Conservative Members, I can do no better than to quote what Winston Churchill said in 1910 about property speculators—it was right then, and it is right now:
The profits of property speculators rise in direct proportion to the damage they do to the rest of the community.
They make their money by pushing up rents. They drive up industrial and commercial rents and company costs.
One of the reasons for rising unemployment in London is that companies cannot afford to pay the rents that property speculators demand. Companies close or leave London, and jobs are lost. Since the Government took office, 400,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in London. People tend to forget that London used to be the major manufacturing city in Britain. Banks and insurance companies should remember that when they decide on their investment policies. They achieved quicker and cheaper returns by investing in property speculation than by investing in industrial or commercial activity. They have done a vast amount of damage.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said, in the past year the number of people unemployed in London has soared from 201,000 to 309,000—even according to the Government's doctored figures. There are 26 out-of-work people for every vacancy. Some of the jobs have been lost in the health service. When the Government took office, there were 140,000 people working full time in the health service in London. The figure is now down to 120,000.
When the number of jobs was decreasing, the Government said that it would not affect patients, but it


has. During that period, the hospital waiting lists have increased by a third. Now, more than 134,000 Londoners are waiting for hospital treatment. If it was not staff cuts that led to those waiting lists, it must have been the bed cuts. The number of acute hospital beds has gone down by a third, from 31,000 to 21,000. Fewer staff, fewer beds, longer waiting lists: it is a simple matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has been so effective in exposing the shortcomings of the Government's transport policies that they have made a U-turn—or, at least, they are trying to convince people that they have. We have heard about the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, and the good old Evening Standard—not usually a Labour paper—says:
Tube fares set for huge rises".
That is because the Government will not provide the money to invest in London Regional Transport.
In their amendment, all that the Government can say about transport is that the transport system is
as extensive as any in Europe".
So what? It always was. With equal accuracy they could have said that it is the most expensive, most unreliable, slowest and dirtiest in Europe. The people of London know that, even if Conservative Members deny it.
It is not a Labour party myth that people in London are concerned about the education that their children are receiving. Apart from the many mad testing schemes that take up teachers' time—and even the Tories seem to be abandoning them—the Tories are saying that the answer is to go back to basics. I agree with that. There are many basics we need but do not have at present. We need a qualified teacher for every class. That is pretty basic. We need a textbook for every child, a classroom that does not let in the rain, and a nutritious school dinner for every child that needs one. Those are pretty basic needs, too. Incidentally, I remind Conservative Members that, when the present Prime Minister was a Minister at the Department of Social Security, he deprived 35,000 of the poorest children in London of the right to a free school meal. We need one other basic change. We want a Cabinet with members who send their children to the schools that they say are good enough for the children of their constituents.
The Tories keep moaning about crime and, with good reason, crime concerns the people of London. In the 1974 election the present Prime Minister stood in St. Pancras, North, which is now part of my constituency. At that time, he said that the figure for violent crime was too high. Since then it has doubled, and doubled again. There are four violent crimes now for every one in 1974, when he said that there were too many. Since the Government took office, the number of sexual offences in London has doubled, robbery has trebled and criminal damage has trebled. I have been checking and it appears that the only contribution that the Prime Minister made to solving that problem when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury and then Chancellor of the Exchequer was to refuse to find the funds that the Metropolitan police thought were necessary to combat rising crime in London.
The problems for London in the future are enormous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) said so movingly, London is a troublesome place. It has always been a troublesome place. It is crowded and difficult. There are no instant solutions to the problems, and the Labour party does not

offer instant solutions to intractable problems. It is nothing to do with money, but, unlike the Government, who perform a stunt every Tuesday and Thursday and have to go back on the stunt the following Tuesday and Thursday, we believe that it is better to think out the answers to problems before suggesting them.
We believe that there are three ways forward for the future of London. The Labour party has national policies with practical answers to practical problems on jobs, training, policing, housing, education, health, transport and crime. We know in advance that they will not all work; nobody's policies have all worked. However, we have to try to work our way through and improve the quality of life in London.
We have learnt lessons, including some from the performance of London Labour councils. We accept some responsibility for what has been going on. We have learnt that it is no good for the Government to say, "This is going to happen, this is a change in the law and here is the money," and then think that the service has automatically been delivered. We know from experience that that is not so. That is why we are proposing a quality commission with powers to check the costing and quality of services provided by local government. In the light of the failure of the social services inspectorate in Staffordshire, this Government, above all, should remember that we want top quality inspectorates looking at all the services.
The issue that has received most attention, at least from Opposition Members, is that we believe that there should be an elected strategic authority for London. Most of the work will always have to be done by the lower tier authorities. The GLC used to perform some of the duties that would be better done by the lower tiers, and that is why I always believed that it should be substantially changed. There are Londonwide problems requiring a Londonwide perspective from an elected body. Some jobs simply cannot be done by 32 or more boroughs. Planning, transport and other strategic issues need to be dealt with by a Londonwide authority.
What we want, and what Londoners have made clear in every poll about London that they want, is an elected voice for London. They want government of the people of London, by the people of London, for the people of London. That is what the people of Birmingham, Glasgow and Sheffield get. They elect councils with civic pride to do something about their great cities. That is what we are promising the people of London. We know that they want it, and the Tories are scared stiff of those alternatives.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I apologise to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) for missing his opening speech. I shall read the record. However, I have been able to listen to the excellent contributions from my hon. Friends and from other hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (M r. Dobson) talked about homelessness. I agree that it is a disgrace that people should wish to sleep and have to sleep in the streets of the capital. Members on both sides of the House share that view. That is why the Department of the Environment has initiated a major programme of £180 million over two years. It is also why, over the past two years, the Department of Health has instituted a major programme of housing, both temporary and permanent,


for the mentally ill—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may barrack me, but I am trying to make a serious point with which both sides of the House would agree.
Several points were raised on the structure of government in London. There were powerful speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton), for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes). They all spoke out strongly for London. Although I intend to address most of my remarks to transport, I shall ensure that their remarks are conveyed to my colleagues at the Department of the Environment.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) is in her place. In a recent interview as a shadow transport Minister she perhaps let the cat out of the bag. She was asked whether the new authority for London could be a taxing authority. Quite fairly and frankly, she admitted that it could be.

Ms. Harriet Harman: Will the Minister tell my constituents, whose homes and lives are blighted by the shambles over the channel tunnel rail link, when he will decide on the options for that link and whether he will rule out an overland route through south London that would blight for ever an inner city area that is hoping to regenerate? When will he put the people of Peckham out of their misery and decide on an alternative route?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady did not deal with my point that the new authority could be a taxing authority. That is the implication. However, the Government have just received from British Rail its preferred routes and will come to a decision as quickly as possible. We will then publish the preferred route and all the detailed justifications for the selection. If elected to office, the Labour party proposes to take six months to come to a decision. We are committed to reaching a decision as quickly and sensibly as possible.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: The Minister said that I gave an honest answer that such an authority could be a taxing authority. He knows perfectly well that in the Labour party's published document it does not state that it will be a taxing authority. It will take over the precepts that are currently given to the quangos that the Government were forced to set up when they removed the GLC. It is unfair of the Minister to suggest that I have made any mistake or that my comments differ in any way from the views of my party.

Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the hon. Lady does not differ from her party in any way, which is why we note her comments as shadow transport Minister about the taxing implications of the new body.
As the Minister for Public Transport, I emphasise that we all agree—including the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—that for London the transport infrastructure is vital. We want a modern, clean, reliable and safe infrastructure for the underground, for the buses, for Network SouthEast—

Mr. Gould: Is this how it is to be done?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member for Dagenham waves the Evening Standard. Let me disabuse him: there is absolutely no truth in the Evening Standard's article, so if I were him, I should fold it up and put it down.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report was published today, after six months, detailed study of the underground. We welcome the report, as it is well written and serious. It reflects the fact that the Victorian and Edwardian structure of the railway has needed, and still needs, substantial maintenance. Demand on London Underground has risen dramatically in the previous five or six years, as my hon. Friends who represent London constituencies know. Demand has increased by 50 per cent., so extra capacity is needed.
The Government have approved two new underground railway lines and are planning a third. We have a 15-year programme involving the Jubilee line, which will cost over £1 billion, the east-west crossrail and the safeguarding of the Chelsea-Hackney route. That is a creditable programme for the extension of the London underground, which will cost more than £3 billion. [Interruption.] Whereas we are planning to support a £3 billion investment programme for London Underground over the next three years—which is double the investment programme of the previous three years—the Opposition will be unable to improve on that programme, because the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury will not permit any revenue commitments. Their preference for revenue subsidy to reduce the fares on Network SouthEast and on the underground is a non-runner.
As for the capital programme, the Opposition's suggestion is to borrow in the private capital markets. I can tell the shadow Transport Minister that London Underground will not be able to borrow in the private capital markets without a guarantee from Her Majesty's Government—it is not possible. That is part of public sector borrowing and they would end up paying more than the Government pay through the national loans fund. Such a proposal would not run.
In his speech, which I am sorry that I missed, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said that a comparison of investment by the GLC in the London underground in 1984–85 of £165 million—that is at today's prices—with that for 1990–91 of £442 million showed an increase of two and a half times. However, he argued that the GLC would have liked to spend more but could not. The weakness in that argument—and I have the figures here—is that in the last three years of the GLC's existence, the revenue subsidy was £510 million, but capital investment was £394 million—only 45 per cent. of the total resources available went on investment.

Mr. Livingstone: rose—

Mr. Freeman: Let me finish the point.
In the past three years, when the Government have had direct control of London Underground, the figures have been reversed. There were £171 million of revenue subsidy and £843 million of investment: 85 per cent. of the resources went on investment. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Livingstone: Will the Minister confirm that the reason why the figures are different is that the GLC had complete control of the revenue figure to set as it wished, but the capital figure was subject to central Government control? It was negotiated between GLC officials and


Department of Transport officials, and it reflected the Government's priorities. Had the Government allowed us to spend what we wished, we would have built the Jubilee extension to the docklands out of revenue. It would now have been operating with not £1 of debt on public spending.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman's argument is bogus. The resources available to the GLC were part of the public sector. The Labour party made the deliberate decision to emphasise revenue subsidy, not investment. The Government have reversed that emphasis, much to the benefit of Londoners.
I shall deal with buses and then with the railways before I conclude. The Conservative party is the party with positive ideas for the future of London buses. We favour the deregulation of London bus services and the privatisation of London Buses Ltd. The management of London Buses want the services to be privatised. We favour deregulation because we want more bus services provided in Greater London—services at different times of the day and of the week.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: That will not happen.

Mr. Freeman: How does the hon. Gentleman know? If the services are deregulated, nobody will destroy the traditional red double-decker London buses. They will remain, but instead of London Regional Transport deciding centrally where the bus routes will run, we shall give the market a chance to decide—and that means the passengers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Freeman: I shall give way in a moment, but let me finish this point.
We believe that by deregulating the market we shall increase the patronage of London buses and that, therefore, there will be less congestion on London's roads. The Conservative party has taken the initiative with the red routes. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said that that initiative had been so successful that traffic speeds were giving cause for concern. Our policies—not only the red routes and the improvement of Network SouthEast and of London roads, but the deregulation of bus services—are the best recipe for relieving congestion in Greater London.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially as I was in a Select Committee for some of the debate. He challenged me when I made a sedentary intervention. Will he tell Londoners and the House how full deregulation, which is what the Government's paper recommends, is compatible with a service that provides buses early on a Sunday morning, for example, or at the end of routes which, at the moment, are funded from the surplus in the central area of a route? How will full deregulation under his proposals provide the scale of service that Londoners want?

Mr. Freeman: In the same way that bus services in the provinces are provided where the social routes in the provinces are subsidised. My local county council subsidises bus routes, and that applies to the councils in the constituencies of all my hon. Friends. That will continue. The authority responsible for bus transportation in London will continue to sponsor socially necessary bus

routes and services. [Interruption.] I have already answered the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. Perhaps he did not hear the first time so, for the sake of clarity, I shall tell him again why the Evening Standard is wrong.
We accept that substantial increases in investment in London underground are needed. We have provided for £3 billion of investment over the next three years, which is an increase of 100 per cent. There is no question of huge fare rises for the passengers of London Underground. That is neither acceptable nor appropriate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) mentioned Network SouthEast. I am grateful for his support of the principle of privatisation which the Government, when re-elected, will introduce in the next Parliament. Privatisation has three advantages. First, investment constraints are removed. In the private sector, British Rail would be able to borrow what it deemed sensible. The employees of British Rail—140,000 of them—will be able to own shares directly in British Rail. Indeed, their pay will be more directly related to their performance. Thirdly, where appropriate—it is not appropriate for Network SouthEast—I hope that there will be greater competition and therefore a greater improvement in the quality of services.
There are key differences between the approaches of the Opposition and of the Government to transport planning in London. It needs to be properly co-ordinated. I am the Minister responsible for co-ordinating public transportation in London, and it is done well and satisfactorily. The main differences between the Labour party and the Government are, first, that the Labour party believes in centralised planning and centralised control while we believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton) said, in a decentralised system of planning where the passenger, not a bureaucrat or a politician, makes the decision.
Secondly, we do not believe in politicians deciding on new rail or underground lines. It is for the operators to make the decision and to bring it to the Government for funding. We have done that. Thirdly, the Labour party believes in revenue subsidy while we believe that investment is the key. Lastly, the Opposition can make no further commitment to provide funding to increase the expenditure to which the Government are committed. We have a major programme for London involving £4 billion over the next three years for Network SouthEast and London Underground. The Government will continue in office and bring the benefits of that programme to full fruit for Londoners.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 300.

Division No. 156]
[7.01 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Beckett, Margaret


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Allen, Graham
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Anderson, Donald
Benton, Joseph


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bermingham, Gerald


Armstrong, Hilary
Blair, Tony


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Boateng, Paul


Ashton, Joe
Boyes, Roland


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bradley, Keith


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Battle, John
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)






Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Janner, Greville


Buckley, George J.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Caborn, Richard
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Callaghan, Jim
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Lamond, James


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Leadbitter, Ted


Canavan, Dennis
Leighton, Ron


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lewis, Terry


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Livingstone, Ken


Clelland, David
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cohen, Harry
Loyden, Eddie


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McAllion, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Corbett, Robin
McKelvey, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
McLeish, Henry


Cousins, Jim
McMaster, Gordon


Cox, Tom
McNamara, Kevin


Crowther, Stan
Madden, Max


Cryer, Bob
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cummings, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cunningham, Dr John
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dalyell, Tam
Martlew, Eric


Darling, Alistair
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Meale, Alan


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Michael, Alun


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dewar, Donald
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dixon, Don
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dobson, Frank
Morgan, Rhodri


Doran, Frank
Morley, Elliot


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mowlam, Marjorie


Eadie, Alexander
Murphy, Paul


Eastham, Ken
Nellist, Dave


Edwards, Huw
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Evans, John (St Helens N)
O'Brien, William


Fatchett, Derek
O'Hara, Edward


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Patchett, Terry


Fisher, Mark
Pendry, Tom


Flannery, Martin
Pike, Peter L.


Flynn, Paul
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Prescott, John


Foster, Derek
Primarolo, Dawn


Foulkes, George
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fraser, John
Radice, Giles


Fyfe, Maria
Randall, Stuart


Galloway, George
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Reid, Dr John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Richardson, Jo


Golding, Mrs Llin
Robinson, Geoffrey


Gordon, Mildred
Rogers, Allan


Gould, Bryan
Rooker, Jeff


Graham, Thomas
Rooney, Terence


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Rowlands, Ted


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Ruddock, Joan


Grocott, Bruce
Sedgemore, Brian


Hain, Peter
Sheerman, Barry


Harman, Ms Harriet
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Haynes, Frank
Short, Clare


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Skinner, Dennis


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Henderson, Doug
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hinchliffe, David
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Soley, Clive


Hood, Jimmy
Spearing, Nigel


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Steinberg, Gerry


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Stott, Roger


Hoyle, Doug
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Straw, Jack


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Illsley, Eric
Turner, Dennis


Ingram, Adam
Vaz, Keith





Walley, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Warden, Gareth (Gowsr)
Wray, Jimmy


Williams, Rt Hon Alan



Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilson, Brian
Mr. Thomas McAvoy and


Winnick, David
Mr. Robert Wareing.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aitken, Jonathan
Dover, Den


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dunn, Bob


Alton, David
Durant, Sir Anthony


Amos, Alan
Dykes, Hugh


Arbuthnot, James
Eggar, Tim


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Emery, Sir Peter


Ashby, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Evennett, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Fallon, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Favell, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fearn, Ronald


Baldry, Tony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Batiste, Spencer
Forman, Nigel


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Beggs, Roy
Forth, Eric


Beith, A. J.
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bendall, Vivian
Franks, Cecil


Benyon, W.
Freeman, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
French, Douglas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fry, Peter


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gale, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardiner, Sir George


Bottomley, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bowis, John
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Goodlad, Alastair


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brazier, Julian
Gorst, John


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Grist, Ian


Budgen, Nicholas
Ground, Patrick


Burns, Simon
Grylls, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butler, Chris
Hague, William


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, John


Carr, Michael
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carttiss, Michael
Harris, David


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawkins, Christopher


Chapman, Sydney
Hayes, Jerry


Chope, Christopher
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Conway, Derek
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hill, James


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hind, Kenneth


Cormack, Patrick
Hordern, Sir Peter


Couchman, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Curry, David
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howells, Geraint


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Day, Stephen
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Devlin, Tim
Irvine, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Irving, Sir Charles


Dicks, Terry
Jack, Michael






Janman, Tim
Price, Sir David


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Redwood, John


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rhodes James, Robert


Kennedy, Charles
Riddick, Graham


Key, Robert
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rost, Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knox, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Latham, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sims, Roger


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Livsey, Richard
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Squire, Robin


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Steen, Anthony


Maclennan, Robert
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stevens, Lewis


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Madel, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Major, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Malins, Humfrey
Sumberg, David


Maples, John
Summerson, Hugo


Marlow, Tony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Thurnham, Peter


Miller, Sir Hal
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mills, Iain
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Sir David
Tredinnick, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Trimble, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trippier, David


Morrison, Sir Charles
Trotter, Neville


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moss, Malcolm
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Viggers, Peter


Mudd, David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Needham, Richard
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Nelson, Anthony
Wallace, James


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waller, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walters, Sir Dennis


Nicholls, Patrick
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Watts, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wells, Bowen


Norris, Steve
Wheeler, Sir John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Whitney, Ray


Oppenheim, Phillip
Widdecombe, Ann


Page, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Paice, James
Wilkinson, John


Patnick, Irvine
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Winterton, Nicholas


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wolfson, Mark


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wood, Timothy


Pawsey, James
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Yeo, Tim


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)



Porter, David (Waveney)
Tellers for the Noes:


Portillo, Michael
Mr. David Lightbown, and


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 26.

Division No. 157]
[7.16 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Aitken, Jonathan
Forth, Eric


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Amos, Alan
Fox, Sir Marcus


Arbuthnot, James
Franks, Cecil


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Freeman, Roger


Arnold, Sir Thomas
French, Douglas


Ashby, David
Fry, Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Gale, Roger


Atkins, Robert
Gardiner, Sir George


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Gill, Christopher


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Batiste, Spencer
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Goodlad, Alastair


Bellingham, Henry
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Benyon, W.
Gorst, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boswell, Tim
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bottomley, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grist, Ian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Ground, Patrick


Bowis, John
Grylls, Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hague, William


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Graham
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Harris, David


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Haselhurst, Alan


Budgen, Nicholas
Hawkins, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Hayward, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butler, Chris
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Butterfill, John
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hill, James


Carrington, Matthew
Hind, Kenneth


Carttiss, Michael
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cash, William
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Chope, Christopher
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Irving, Sir Charles


Conway, Derek
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Janman, Tim


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Couchman, James
Key, Robert


Cran, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Curry, David
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knapman, Roger


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Day, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dicks, Terry
Knox, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dover, Den
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dunn, Bob
Latham, Michael


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan


Eggar, Tim
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fallon, Michael
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Favell, Tony
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)






Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Riddick, Graham


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Rossi, Sir Hugh


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Rost, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sackville, Hon Tom


Madel, David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Malins, Humfrey
Sayeed, Jonathan


Marlow, Tony
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Miller, Sir Hal
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Mills, Iain
Shersby, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sims, Roger


Mitchell, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Monro, Sir Hector
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Morrison, Sir Charles
Speller, Tony


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Moss, Malcolm
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Squire, Robin


Mudd, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Steen, Anthony


Needham, Richard
Stern, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stevens, Lewis


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Paice, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Thurnham, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Pawsey, James
Tracey, Richard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trippier, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Trotter, Neville


Porter, David (Waveney)
Viggers, Peter


Portillo, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Powell, William (Corby)
Waller, Gary


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Walters, Sir Dennis


Rhodes James, Robert
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)





Watts, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wells, Bowen
Wood, Timothy


Wheeler, Sir John
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Whitney, Ray
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Ann



Wiggin, Jerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mr. David Lightbown and


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. John M. Taylor.


NOES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Livsey, Richard


Beggs, Roy
Maclennan, Robert


Beith, A. J.
Madden, Max


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Martlew, Eric


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Salmond, Alex


Carr, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Cox, Tom
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Cryer, Bob
Trimble, David


Fearn, Ronald
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Howells, Geraint



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Mr. James Wallace and


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Livingstone, Ken

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House deplores the habit of the Labour Party to run down London in a way which, if taken seriously, would damage its image abroad, deter foreign investors and bring glee to London's competitor cities overeas; emphasises that London is one of the world's finest cities with cultural and business attractions which have few rivals, a transport system as extensive as any in Europe and international hub airports which are the envy of others; welcomes the decision of the Government to relieve London of the unnecessary and highly wasteful Greater London Council; deplores Labour's plans to establish a still more wasteful London-wide body with powers to control the police which even the Greater London Council did not have; welcomes the Government's enmormous investment programme in public transport and in infrastructure in Docklands; and salutes the Government's achievements of the last 12 years which have raised Britain's reputation abroad and with it that of her capital city.

Training and the Unemployed

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.

Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Government for the recession which is affecting every part of Britain and every sector of industry, with serious long-term consequences for Britain's future; notes with dismay that at a time of rising unemployment, the Government is cutting support for the unemployed; and calls upon it to reverse the cuts in training provision and provide additional employment measures for the unemployed without delay.
Our case tonight is clear: this recession is the avoidable recession, the consequence not of events outside Government control but of errors of economic incompetence. It is now cruelly affecting the lives of millions of our citizens, and without urgent Government action—first, on interest rates, secondly, on training and, thirdly, on help for the unemployed—there will be lasting and long-term damage to the future of this country.
In the past six months alone—the first six months of the Prime Minister's premiership—almost 500,000 people have been added to the dole queue. Ministers used to say that unemployment was not rising in the north, in Scotland, in the midlands and in Wales—just in the south. Last month shattered that illusion, when unemployment rose most sharply in the midlands, and the north and Scotland suffered their worst rise of the recession.
They used to clutch at the straw that unemployment was at least still below the European Community average. Now, according to the OECD, it is above it, and according to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research last week, by the end of 1991 only Spain, Ireland and what was East Germany will have higher unemployment rates than Britain.
This week Cambridge Econometrics and the London Business School forecast that unemployment will not only rise throughout the rest of this year but will continue to rise in 1992. Those bodies say that unemployment may rise to almost 3 million. Is any Minister prepared to contradict them?
Ministers used to take comfort from the idea that the recession was service-based, affecting white collar professionals. Now we know that even that was a false hope. Manufacturing output this year will fall by about 6 per cent., and investment by 10 per cent. According to the evidence given by the Confederation of British Industry to the Select Committee on Employment, about 90,000 to 100,000 manufacturing jobs have gone in the first few months of this year alone. Our analysis of vacancies at job centres shows engineering vacancies falling by 60 per cent. and technicians' vacancies by 70 per cent.
Worse still, it is clear that, over the period 1979 to 1991, we start from a lower base than other countries. By the end of 1991, manufacturing will have grown more slowly than in any other OECD country. It has risen by 62 per cent. in Japan, by 37 per cent. in the United States, by 27 per cent. in Germany but by only 6 per cent. in Britain. Manufacturing investment will have grown more slowly in Britain than in any other country except Greece.
The true distinctive feature of the recession is not that it is a sudden, service-based, white-collar recession, but

that it is now affecting north and south, services and manufacturing, white-collar and manual jobs. No region, no sector, no occupation is now immune.
Let us be clear that, however the recession began, the reality today is that the companies going to the wall, the employees being made redundant, are those that took the tough decisions in the early 1980s, and reformed and changed as Ministers urged them to. These are the casualties not of wrong decisions taken by lazy managers or obstinate employees but of wrong decisions taken by Ministers, and it is Ministers who should now shoulder the responsibility.
In this recession, we are losing companies that we cannot afford to lose and skills that we desperately need to keep. Our concern lies not just in the present fears of the hundreds of thousands of people not under the threat of unemployment, and not just in the present difficulties of industry and home owners suffering under high interest rates. Our concern is that, without action now, we shall lose, and lose permanently, capacity and skills that we require to compete successfully in the future.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is talking with great sincerity about unemployment. Has he had a chance to study the pamphlet produced by the Fabian Society, which shows that a national minimum wage policy would cost about 800,000 jobs? Does he agree with that estimate, and even if he does not, does he support his party's policy to introduce a national minimum wage?

Mr. Blair: I support that policy absolutely. The hon. Gentleman has been badly briefed by his researchers. The Fabian pamphlet that Ministers cite against a minimum wage was actually written in support of it. The job estimates are absolute nonsense. We know, as does the rest of the country, that Conservative Members are raising the issue only because they dare not talk about the unemployment that they are creating, day in and day out.
The other day, in an interview on "Frost on Sunday" on TV-am, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the Government's response to the recession:
These are just vague stirrings at the moment, but the signs arc there … I know that when one talks to business men —I talk to business men all the time, and listen very carefully to what they're saying—lots of them say, 'We can't see it', but of course, they can't sec round the corner. That is what the economist has to do, what the Treasury has to do, and what we have seen
David Frost then asked the Chancellor:
But the vague stirring? You're saying you've seen vague stirring?
The Chancellor replied:
Faint stirrings, yes.
Given three years of high interest rates and the number of small businesses going bankrupt—bankruptcy rates went up by 97 per cent. in the south this year, by 115 per cent. in the midlands, by 159 per cent. in Wales and by 261 per cent. in East Anglia—"faint stirrings" are a pretty poor record for any Government after 12 years.
Ministers told us that there would be no recession when there was a recession; they told us that it would be shallow when it was deep. Now, when the evidence of their own incompetence is piled deep around them, and when we have the worst recession in the western world, they still try to pretend that the problem does not exist, because they do not have a clue how to solve it.
Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer not understand that, as he and his colleagues looked round the corner—as


he puts it—two years ago and told people that there was an economic miracle, and as people and businesses planned, borrowed and organised on that basis, those people and businesses are now entitled to experience feelings of betrayal, because, instead of a miracle, they have got a recession? Does the Secretary of State for Employment not understand the feelings of the unemployed, and their anger, not only about the fact of unemployment but about the fact that, at a time of fast rising unemployment—we have the fastest rising unemployment anywhere in the western world—the Government are cutting the budget for training the unemployed?
When unemployment was last at 2 million, in December 1988, the budget for special employment measures was £1–5billion in real terms. Today it is £800 million. Then, unemployment was falling; now, it is rising. Are not the training and enterprise councils, which have been landed with the responsibility for training the unemployed without the power or funds to do it properly, entitled to experience a sense of betrayal as well?

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman in the full flight of his rhetoric and return him to reality? How does he explain the fact that the amount spent on training in real terms—not in cash terms —is two and a half times higher than it was in 1979? That is a fact, and he cannot deny it. In the midst of all his waffle and rhetoric, he might compare the Government's record with that of their Labour predecessors.

Mr. Blair: As the hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about reality, are we not entitled to point to the reality of what is happening to training and enterprise councils? The hon. Gentleman does not need to take our word for it—

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Blair: The hon. Gentleman asked about the reality of TECs—

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order.

Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that I asked about the reality of training and enterprise councils.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am quite prepared to listen to the hon. Gentleman's point of order when the House will allow me to hear it, as it must.

Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is rather at fault. He said that I had asked him about TECs. Should he not have another chance to answer the question that I put to him? He said that training was underfunded, yet we are spending two and a half times as much as was spent when the Labour party was in office. That is the question that he should answer.

Mr. Blair: The hon. Gentleman's case—

Mr. Nicholls: Just answer it.

Mr. Blair: If the hon. Gentleman disputes that TECs are underfunded, he does not have to take my word for it but the word of the TECs themselves. One thing that one

can say about the Government's case is that at least they have been clear, if not brazen, over the past six months. We have raised the question of the underfunding of training and the cuts in the training of the unemployed—

Mr. Nicholls: But you oppose TECs.

Mr. Blair: For six months, the Government have consistently denied that there is any such underfunding—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) listened, he might learn something. For six months—

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. That is not the way in which we conduct ourselves. Doubtless other hon. Members will seek the opportunity to make alternative arguments.

Mr. Blair: If the hon. Gentleman were to read the Government's proposals on preventive health care, he might find something that would help him.
Let us return to the training and enterprise councils and the cuts that have been made, and consider what the Government have been saying in the past few months. Many hon. Members of all parties will remember that, when the Opposition have raised the issue of cuts in training, the Government have consistently denied that any such cuts are being made. On 26 February, the Secretary of State said that Opposition complaints about funding were entirely unjustified. The Under-Secretary of State for Employment has said that the TECs are contracted to deliver the guarantee, funded accordingly, and will deliver the guarantee. The Secretary of State has also said that he has put in place the widest and most comprehensive range of assistance to help the unemployed. That is what the Government have been saying, but we are now able—

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Blair: No, I should like to finish my point.
We have conducted the first nationwide survey of training and enterprise councils and the problems that they have discovered, and we now have the evidence to put before the Government. This comes not from the Opposition, but from the training and enterprise councils which the Government themselves established. The 40 or so training and enterprise councils that replied to the survey report an average cut in training places of 25 per cent. That means that, in those TECs alone, 20,000 training places have been cut, and that 300,000 training weeks have been lost.
However, worse and more significant than anything else, is the reason that has been given. It is not the case, as the Government have said, that those TECs are merely switching training providers and reallocating contracts to different people. They have not said that there is any lack of demand for training places. Indeed, they have not said any of the things that the Government have been saying. The evidence has been clear. The north Nottinghamshire training and enterprise council has stated:
there could be some difficulty in meeting the guarantee in North Notts given current funding levels for both ourselves and Employment Service.


The Kent training and enterprise council, which covers the Secretary of State's constituency, has stated:
The provision for ET this year is 30 per cent. less than 1990/1991. The budget amounts to £5·338 million but as we have carried over a large number of trainees into this financial year, our training providers are having to reduce numbers at a time when demand is increasing.
The Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council has stated:
Out of a total of 12 local (adult training) contracts, four have not been renewed. The rationale for these decisions is relatively simple, in that we have to strike a balance between the needs of the trainees; increasing the quality of training; and maintaining viable providers on a budget reduced in real terms by about 50 per cent.
That is what has been happening to the training and enterprise councils.

Mr. Oppenheim: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that, not very long ago, he stated in answer to an intervention from myself that a future Labour Government would increase spending on training as a matter of priority? Did the hon. Gentleman get the chance to listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) speaking on the "On the Record" programme on 19 May, when she clearly reiterated that a future Labour Government's only spending priorities would be pensions and child benefit? Who is right—the hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for Derby, South?

Mr. Blair: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Budget submissions that were produced by the Labour party in the run-up to the Budget, he will see that we showed exactly how the Government could have returned the training and enterprise councils to their previous funding level. The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense.
I should like to quote to him from a letter from the north Nottinghamshire training and enterprise council to one of its local training providers. The House should recall that the Government have consistently said that no training providers are going under as a result of Government cuts in funding, but this is what that TEC has said:
As explained by both Steven and Pearl on recent visits, the overall Adult Training budget for the North Nottinghamshire TEC has been reduced by about 30 per cent. Although this is clearly a strange situation to be in at a time of rapidly rising unemployment, it is nonetheless the case … We realise that our decision has resulted in some unpleasant decisions … to make regarding your staff. I am sincerely sorry that they will be redundant. I wish there was something that I could do to prevent it, but I am afraid that our hands are tied.
That is what is actually happening.
Another minute has found its way into our posession. It is a letter from the Department of Employment to a training provider in London—to the Brixton Neighbourhood Community Association—[Laughter.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: What is funny about that? Why is the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) laughing?

Mr. Blair: I must advise the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) that that organisation was given approved organisation training status by the Government, so it is not very sensible for him to laugh.
The Department of Employment stated:
After very careful consideration, I regret that we will not be seeking to renew our contract with you for the corning

year. As you are aware, funding levels have been drastically reduced and it has just not been possible to continue to fund the existing network of providers.
I repeat that that came from the Department of Employment.
Finally, a minute of a meeting on 2 May between the permanent secretary to the Department of Employment and the training and enterprise councils states:
In both London and Sheffield the forecast for the period October 90 to October 91 was for a 50 per cent. rise in the levels of unemployment. Any arguments that the Treasury therefore had for a reduction in funding were now completely eroded and in fact there was a demonstrable justification for further funds.
In the light of those minutes and letters from the training and enterprise councils, and in view of everything that has been said, are we not entitled to an explanation from the Secretary of State? How does he justify at Employment questions, in debates, on radio and on television steadfastly denying that there is any problem with funding when there is now clear first-hand evidence of a funding reduction that is causing hardship and putting the Government's training guarantees at risk?

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: rose—

Mr. Blair: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
There is not only a problem with the training and enterprise councils. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) recently raised the question of skill centres with the Secretary of State. He was told that he was making up nonsense about skill centres closing and about there being problems following their privatisation. Yesterday, however, my office received a letter from someone who used to be employed by the skill centres, which stated:
Until last May, myself and hundreds of colleagues were civil servants employed by the Department of Employment and working in the Skill centres. I had worked in this field for 14 years and felt quite committed to retraining of the unemployed. I felt then, as I feel now, that training belongs in the public sector and responsibility for adult training and its funding should be taken by the Government.
However, the decision was taken that we should be privatised, and Astra Training Services was born … recently, due in the main to the poor funding of Employment Training and the inability of the private sector to play their part (due I am sure to financial problems) Astra is now making such a large loss that they are needing to shed more staff.
That is the reality of what is happening. Are we not at least entitled to an admission from the Government that that is what is happening?

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm the following figures? Does he accept that there are now 350,000 Government training places and that, when the Government came to power in 1979, there were only 6,000? Does that increase record a cut or is it, as I think, a record of the Government's commitment and real belief in training and in putting enterprise behind it?

Mr. Blair: It is a fact that unemployment is now more than double what it was when the Government came to power. The hon. Gentleman must explain why the Government are cutting funding for training the unemployed when unemployment is rising.

Mr. Richard Caborn: My hon. Friend has referred to Sheffield, whose TECs have been in dialogue with the Secretary of State and his Ministers about the budget cut of 38 per cent. When the pit bull


terrier—the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who is constantly jumping up and down—was a Minister, representatives from the Sheffield TEC met him and tried to develop a proper partnership. A letter to the Minister from the Sheffield TEC says that the board of the TEC is not only frustrated because it cannot develop and deliver a quality service, but feels that it has been conned by the Government. That board consists of people from the private sector who spend two days a week trying to make training effective in a major manufacturing sector. They believe that they have been conned by the Government.

Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am aware that those concerns have been raised with the Secretary of State, and I hope that he will deal with them later.
Many of the TECs consist of people who came to them from business on the basis that they would have a genuine partnership with Government. They have found that their commitment to do more has become an excuse for the Government to do less. That is what is wrong.
What have the Government done recently for the unemployed? They have published what they call a five-point plan for the unemployed.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): Before the hon. Gentleman concludes his remarks on training, will he answer the specific question from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) about his position in relation to the clear statement made by the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), on "On the Record"? If he cannot persuade the shadow Chief Secretary that training should be an immediate spending priority, nothing he has said in the past 15 minutes has any substance whatever.

Mr. Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have listened to what I said. He completely misrepresented the words of the shadow Chief Secretary. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman read our Budget submissions, which we published months ago, he would see exactly how funding should be restored.

Mr. Oppenheim: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a transcript of exactly what the shadow Chief Secretary said in the "On the Record" interview on 19 May.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is a matter for debate; it is not a point of order.

Mr. Blair: I was discussing the Government's five-point plan, which was first launched in April last year, again in October, and then in November, December, February, March, April and May. The five-point plan has been launched eight times; it has been launched more often than the Liberal Democrats.
Let us analyse the plan which the Government boast is the most comprehensive package ever given to the unemployed. The plan offers
In-depth advisory interviews for the newly unemployed … continuity at subsequent advisory interviews ….special advisory interviews … extra help to those long-term unemployed"—
I presume that that means more interviews—and
intensive help with job-search

Perhaps that is another interview. The idea that that amounts to the most comprehensive plan for the unemployed ever launched is risible.
Some Secretaries of State for Employment have tried to create jobs; some of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessors have created schemes; but he has created interviews. He should be the Secretary of State not for Employment, but for interviews. If the local election results in his constituency are any guide to the general election, he may be the first Minister to create a plan for the unemployed and then to participate in it.
Faced with the highest level of unemployment in the western world, thousands of new redundancies each week, record bankruptcies, closures and cuts, what is the Government's response? They have cut training places and closed training programmes which has put their pledges at risk. Then, to add insult to injury, the right hon. and learned Gentleman claims that he is offering more to the unemployed, when on any rational basis he is offering less.
If we have any evidence of the uncaring face of Conservatism, surely this is it. The Government lack not just compassion, but common sense. What other country would cut its budget for training the year before 1992? Is not the worst aspect that we are cutting training when all the evidence points to it being the single most important element of our future success? Even if unemployment were falling—not rising—that policy would be foolish. When people are being made unemployed and need help to return to the labour market, and when we are at the bottom of the recession, should we not now retrain and reskill so that, when recovery comes, it will be our industries, companies and employees that take the advantage of it and not those of our competitors?
Yet what do the Government do? Nothing: they have not one new idea, fresh idea or new policy. They cannot even decide on the temporary work programme that we know has been under discussion since February, but that discussion is obviously well advanced. The occasional leak to the newspapers or radio tells us that it has not yet been ruled out, but four months from when that programme was first raised, there are another 250,000 people unemployed. What will it take to make the Government act? The answer, I am afraid, is fear of general election defeat: that is all.
At the moment, the Government do not sufficiently fear the consequences of unemployment. When the chairman of the Conservative party was interviewed on "Channel 4 News" after the local council elections, he was asked about unemployment. He said:
The question is how much does it affect people's voting intentions, and, I don't think that there is very much evidence that it has all that much impact on people's voting intentions.
The Labour party's task from now until election day will be to prove him wrong, and we will.
When the pressure becomes too much, the headlines too bold, and the editorials too savage, when surrender becomes easier than resistance, the Government will do, what they were asked, as they did on the poll tax, the 16 to 19-year-olds training, transport, Europe and anything else. It will be too little, half-hearted and too late.—The Government are uncertain whether to make a virtue of listening or of standing firm. There will be a fit of indecision succeeded by a rash of misjudgments. That is not a healthy basis for government.
I understand that the Prime Minister has the first editions of the newspapers sent to him at 10 o'clock each evening. That is a revealing fact. Is not the difference between the present Prime Minister and the former one this: she used to read the newspapers the next morning to discover what she had done; he reads them the night before to discover what he should do?
We need action now on interest rates and we need the Government to stand up for the interests of small businesses. It is now that we need training cuts restored and special help for the unemployed. The tasks are too urgent and the needs too great to wait until the Government's indifference over unemployment is eventually replaced by their fear of the election result.
Two weeks ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the recession and unemployment were a price "well worth paying". It will be the Labour party's job to ensure that a price is paid by the Government—at the election.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
'congratulates the Government on the success of policies which have created over a million new jobs since 1979; welcomes the introduction of the most comprehensive range of measures ever available to help the unemployed back to work; notes the very substantial increase in spending on training over the last 12 years; and, in particular, supports the measures in the recent White Paper, Education and Training for the 21st Century.'.
The speech we heard from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was full of his usual blend of indignation, disingenuousness and false promises, and was punctuated by a total failure to answer any of my hon. Friends' questions. It is beyond dispute that had, the hon. Gentleman's party been in office, it would have made unemployment immeasurably worse and its current policies, if they were ever implemented, would raise unemployment sharply. On training, it is beyond dispute that the Labour party would not have made the enormous progress which we have made since 1979 and that its policies would ensure that all the progress that we have made would be put rapidly into reverse.
Let me begin by setting out our achievements. This country has made more progress, more rapidly, on training and employment in the past 12 years than in any previous period in our history. There are over a million more jobs in Britain today than there have ever been under any Labour Government, and last year we recorded the highest number of jobs in our history. More of our work force are qualified now than ever before and more are taking part in training than ever before. Employers are more committed to training than ever before. More young people are entering work well qualified; more of the adult work force is qualified, and at higher levels; and more high-skill jobs are being created and filled. The Government have played their full part at every stage.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield made much of the increases in unemployment in the past 12 months. He has taken to issuing ever more excitable press releases in recent weeks about the levels of unemployment in Conservative-held marginal seats. Before he counts his chickens, he might care to check his facts. He has recently produced a list of 46 Conservative seats, where the numbers of registered unemployed exceed the size of our majority. He neglected to point out that, in 45 of those 46 seats,

unemployment is well below the levels prevailing when they were last fought at the general election. Indeed, unemployment in those 46 seats as a whole has fallen by more than 60,000, or over 25 per cent., since the last election, which is a bigger fall than the 23 per cent. fall in the country as a whole.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: My seat was one of those highlighted by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although the hon. Member for Sedgefield gloats over unemployment and rubs his hands with glee every time someone is made unemployed, we heard little from him in the days when so many new jobs were being created in my constituency in the west midlands? Where was he when the local Labour authority opposed employment training in Wolverhampton and turned down £700,000 from the Government? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he is a total sham and a lot of hot air?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She was also right to describe the hon. Gentleman as gloating. His speech was one long gloat about those figures.
In the most marginal Conservative seat in England, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory), unemployment is more than a third below its June 1987 level. In the most marginal Conservative seat in Scotland, which is represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), unemployment is more than 36 per cent. below its level at that time. In the most marginal Conservative seat in Wales, which is represented by my hon. Friend, the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), unemployment is barely half the level it was when he was elected. Even in the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Sedgefield, unemployment is more than 37 per cent. lower than it was at the time of the last election in June 1987.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister mentioned events north of the border. Does he recall that, when the vice-chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland came up with the idea for Scottish Enterprise, the training investment organisation, he said that its purpose was to eliminate unemployment in Scotland? When will that target be met?

Mr. Howard: It will be met and, in time, that is exactly what we shall achieve. We are pursuing policies that will bring down unemployment in Scotland to levels that have not been seen for many a day.
The way in which the hon. Member for Sedgefield has been using the unemployment statistics is another vivid example of the Labour party's approach to politics, which was described by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health in her memorable phrase as "scaring, not caring". That sums up the Labour party's approach. Its very purpose is to foment alarm and despondency. It is an approach of which it should be thoroughly ashamed.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is present, will he give an undertaking that the Department will look carefully at the adult basic education units in Bathgate and throughout rate-capped Lothian region which are faced with closure? If those units are closed, how can people expect any kind of employment in the labour market? Will the Scottish Office give an undertaking to look at that serious matter?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is present and has heard the hon. Gentleman's question. I am sure that he will look at that matter.

Mr. Dalyell: I want an undertaking.

Mr. Howard: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield is fond of alleging that we are complacent about rising unemployment, but that is wholly untrue. Nor are we negative and alarmist like the Labour party. Unlike Labour Members, we do not spend our time fostering fear but get on with the job of providing practical help to the unemployed. The Govenment are providing more practical help than has ever been available before to help unemployed people back to work. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that there was little point in providing skilled assistance to the unemployed to help them find jobs. He thought that that subject was fit for mockery.
Every month, the employment service finds jobs for over 100,000 unemployed people. For the present financial year, I have set it a testing target—to find 1·3 million jobs for unemployed people, 5,000 jobs every working day.
More than half of those who become unemployed leave unemployment within three months. In recent months we have stepped up our efforts to help the unemployed to higher levels than ever before.

Mr. Blair: Will the Minister at least admit that funding for training the unemployed has been reduced as we said? How does he justify that at a time of rising unemployment?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows the position, which has been explained to him time after time. When we looked at the studies and surveys on those matters which were carried out last autumn, we decided that it was right to adjust the balance of help provided to the unemployed. That is why we increased provision through the employment service and increased the number of places in job clubs and through the job interview guarantee scheme. When we saw that unemployment was rising in February this year, I announced an extra £120 million for employment training, specifically to meet that changed situation.

Mr. Blair: Will the Secretary of State admit, plainly so that it will appear on the record, that he has cut funding for training the unemployed as was said?

Mr. Howard: I have explained to the hon. Gentleman exactly what we have done. I have told him that, unless and until he can persuade the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury to endorse his spending proposals, nothing that he says on this matter carries the slightest conviction.

Sir Norman Fowler: Would not the hon. Gentleman's point carry much more credibility, had the Labour party not campaigned against the introduction of employment training, which is the biggest training programme for long-term unemployed people, and, initially, against the training and enterprise councils?

Mr. Howard: My right hon. Friend, who introduced employment training in the teeth of sustained opposition from the Labour party, is absolutely right. It lies ill in the mouth of the Labour party to criticise that programme.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Secretary of State realise that one of the main employers in my constituency is the Central Statistical Office, which collects Government statistics? It is so concerned about the constant manipulations and fiddles in Government statistics that the figures that we have been given today are meaningless and no comparisons are being made. Does the Secretary of State recall telling me a month ago that 700,000 people are counted twice in the employment statistics—he has said that again tonight—because they are doing more than one job?

Mr. Howard: If the Central Statistical Office lies in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he should know that the comparisons that we make are entirely consistent. If he has any doubts about that, I suggest that he asks his constituents who work in the Central Statistical Office because he will then see that that is entirely true.

Mr. Ron Leighton: rose—

Mr. Howard: I shall give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee, but then I must get on.

Mr. Leighton: We are trying to get the facts straight on the funding for employment training. Does the Secretary of State agree that during the last autumn review the TEC chairmen asked that the funding for ET should remain the same, but that there was a cut of £365 million, of which the Secretary of State has restored £120 million—one third of the original cut? The TEC chairmen are asking for the other two thirds to be put back. Since then, unemployment has risen for 14 consecutive months and the Secretary of State has not put back a single penny piece. Are not those the facts?

Mr. Howard: Naturally, the TEC chairmen asked for more money then and I dare say that they will ask for more money again. Does the hon. Gentleman know of anyone who is in charge of a budget who does not want to see it made bigger and does not ask for more money? Of course, that is what the TEC chairmen want, but they have been told in the past and will be told again that they will have the resources they need to do the job that they have been set.

Mr. Alun Michael: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Howard: No, I cannot give way again. I must press on.
I want to tell the House—although I understand why the Labour party are reluctant to listen—about the ways in which we have been helping the unemployed. Job clubs are a highly successful means of helping unemployed people back to work. Some 64 per cent. of unemployed people leaving job clubs go straight into jobs, training or further education. There were no job clubs when the Labour party was in power. Such clubs were introduced by this Government. This year, we are providing an extra 100,000 places in job clubs and the new job interview guarantee scheme, which is a new project that we have piloted in inner cities. It brings together people without jobs and employers with vacancies. There was no such scheme when the Labour party was in power.
Restart interviews were scoffed at by the hon. Member for Sedgefield. They were the first systematic means to call in and offer help to the long-term unemployed and were introduced by this Government. There were no restart


interviews when the Labour party was in power. Now we are also offering restart courses—one-week job preparation courses.
The enterprise allowance scheme—the first ever national programme to help unemployed people become self-employed—was introduced by this Government. Already more than half a million new businesses have been founded by the EAS. Now that scheme is run by the training and enterprise councils, which have been given the flexibility to tailor it to meet the needs of different areas. There was no EAS when the Labour party was in power.
Employment training—the first ever national programme offering training to the long-term unemployed —was introduced by this Government when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was Secretary of State for Employment. There was nothing remotely like employment training when the Labour party was in power.
The employment service is now a next steps agency with much greater flexibility and efficiency so that it can offer help to the unemployed more effectively than ever. Yes it is true that it is now providing throughout the country a comprehensive five-point, job-help package to meet the specific needs of unemployed individuals. That includes in-depth advisory interviews for all newly unemployed people and an individual hack-to-work plan agreed with each one of them. There was nothing comparable when the Labour party was in power. The resources that have been made available to the employment service have been increased to ensure that it can provide that help effectively and efficiently. This year there will be about 650,000 opportunities, through my Department's programmes, to help unemployed people. No Government have ever done more than this one to help unemployed people back to work. We shall continue to spare no effort to ensure that we give them all the help that they need.
What would be the position on unemployment today if the Labour party was in power? We heard a good deal about economic mismanagement from the hon. Member for Sedgefield. With the benefit of hindsight, I would be the first to admit that interest rates were cut too far in the autumn of 1987 after the stock market crash. That unleashed the inflationary pressures which we are now getting back under control. It is absolutely clear that, if the Labour party had been in office in 1987 and 1988, the unemployment and recession we face today would be far worse. Throughout that autumn and winter, the Labour party called time and time again for still lower interest rates.
I am delighted to see that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is with us this evening. He was confronted with the evidence by Brian Walden on 17 March, who put his own statements back to him, and their effect on him was remarkable. He could not begin to conceal his discomfiture and was reduced to stuttering incoherence. He started grunting like an unhappy Japanese Sumo wrestler. He knew then and he knows now that the policies that he was then advocating would have made matters infinitely worse. The sum total of the Labour party's approach to economic policy is to call for lower interest rates in all circumstances and at all times, regardless of whether that would be the appropriate step to take. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's policy is the policy of the parrot—memorise a phrase and

repeat it mindlessly and endlessly in all places and at all times, regardless of whether it has the least relevance to the task in hand.
So much for the policies that the Labour party would have pursued if it had been in power during the past few years. What of the policies that it now proposes? What would be their effect on unemployment? The effect of the minimum wage policy on jobs would be devastating, and hon. Members do not have to take that from me. The Fabian Society pamphlet said:
If the national legal minimum wage were a fixed proportion of median earnings, like half'—
that is only the first stage of Labour's policy—
the restoration of differentials would have to be prevented, otherwise the proportion could not be held. If differentials were restored to any degree"—
as both the pamphlet and trade union leaders made it clear that they would be—
median earnings would rise and that would necessitate a compensating increase in the national legal minimum wage, setting off more restorations of differentials. An automatic upward chase would have been set in motion with inflationary consequences.
The pamphlet went on to support estimates that up to 880,000 jobs would be destroyed.
The Fabian Society is not alone in saying that. The Financial Times, which the hon. Member for Sedgefield was so happy to call on for support during the Labour party's recent political broadcast, said in an editorial this week:
Labour's minimum wage would raise unemployment among the unskilled, while doing little to relieve poverty. Moreover, it would reduce the incentive both for workers lo train and for employers to train them.
Joe Haines in the Daily Mirror described the minimum wage by saying that it
won't work and won't help".
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that the unemployment consequences of the minimum wage would be "little short of disastrous."

Ms. Diane Abbott: There are thousands of women in my constituency who do dirty and degrading jobs for less money at the end of the week than the Secretary of State spends on dinner and who would be interested to hear Conservative Members sneering at the notion that they should earn a living wage. If a national minimum wage is so dreadful, why are we the only country in Europe without it?

Mr. Howard: That is not the case. As to the hon. Lady's constituents, of course they need to be helped. We do so sensibly through family credit, not by introducing a minimum wage which would destroy their jobs.
Even the Sunday People has said of Labour's minimum wage:
it would only cause more unemployment and deny jobs to those who most need them".
The stupidity of the Labour party is that it confuses, low-paid jobs with low-income households, but 62 per cent. of those whose pay is in the lowest tenth of earnings are in the richer half of the population. That is why the sensible way of helping those on low incomes is to pay family credit, which is targeted on those in low-paid employment.[Interruption.] We do not flinch from ensuring that the taxpayer helps to look after people on low incomes who need help and it is news to me if the Opposition no longer subscribe to that proposition. We


believe that that is a more sensible way of achieving our objectives than is destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The commitment of the hon. Member for Sedgefield to policies that will destroy jobs would not stop with a minimum wage. He would introduce a new tax on jobs, costing up to 50,000 jobs. He would act immediately to introduce the European Commission's social action programme, which was denounced by every major employers' organisation in Britain because it would add £3·5 billion to their costs and destroy over 100,000 jobs.
What about Labour's strikers charter? What about the return of secondary action and the flying picket, the neutering of the ability of the courts to deal with unlawful action, the compulsion on employers to recognise trade unions, and the new guarantee that strikers cannot be dismissed? Is that how the Labour party intends to encourage jobs and the creation of the resources from which it says that it will pay for all its grandiose schemes?
On training, the Opposition would not have made any of the progress which we have made since 1979. Not only would they never have conceived of the range of training measures which we have introduced, but even when these measures were put on a plate right under their noses their reaction was to fight them tooth and nail. They opposed every training initiative from the start. They attacked YTS. Their leader, as shadow Education Secretary, toured the country in the early 1980s denouncing vocational education in general and our TVEI programme in particular as fit only for
hewers of wood and drawers of water".
The Opposition opposed ET.
Unlike the Opposition, we have taken training seriously. We have increased spending on training two and a half times faster than inflation since 1979. We inherited 6,000 training places for young people from Labour and at present we have 350,000 Government-sponsored training places. That is 60 training places for every one which Labour was able to provide. More than 3 million young people have benefited from youth training and its predecessor since 1983.
We now have in place, with employment training, the biggest training programme for the long-term unemployed in Europe. That increased commitment has been fully matched by British employers, who, in 1986, were spending around £18 billion a year on training. Now they are likely to be spending more than £20 billion a year, and they have done even better than that. Since 1984 the number of employees receiving training from their employers has increased year in year out, and last year it was no less than 85 per cent. greater than it was just six years before. Moreover, we have put in place a national network of training and enterprise councils—the most radical leap forward in employer commitment to training in this century.

Mr. Ray Powell: The worst measure ever.

Mr. Howard: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield. The Labour party should make up its mind about its policy towards training and enterprise councils—

Mr. Ray Powell: They are the worst thing ever.

Mr. Howard: Indeed?

Mr. Powell: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will listen to someone with experience in training. For 12 years I chaired the CATO—community
activities and training in Ogmore—organisation in
mid-Glamorgan in my constituency. In 1981, 600 people were registered under the community programme as training with the organisation. This year, since the advent of training and enterprise councils, the local TEC has decided to withdraw the contract from CATO, which has had in all 4,000 people training under its auspices, so it has been deprived of a substantial contract. Some 250 places have been lost and 280 have been lost under job training —directly as a result of community enterprise training in mid-Glamorgan.

Mr. Howard: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not give the House the benefit of his views on TECs in general. Those views are far removed from those of his Front-Bench spokesmen. He will know from the experience that he has recounted that the community programme was not a training programme and he ought to appreciate that no Government owe a duty to any or every training provider. We owe a duty to the people who need help and training. The world that the Opposition occupy is a world in which nothing changes. They believe that a training provider with a contract should always retain it, regardless of whether it is providing what is needed to meet current demands.

Mr. Donald Anderson: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so keen on meeting the needs of those who need help, does he deny the clear evidence given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) of the reduction of funds for these TECs?

Mr. Howard: I have explained the position on funding several times—the hon. Gentleman could not have been listening. Perhaps he should have a word with the shadow Chief Secretary, with whose remarks on this subject I shall deal in a moment.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Before my right hon. and learned Friend moves off the subject of TECs, may I tell him that, as an employer of 30 years' standing, I consider that they hold out the best prospect for training for our young people that I have known in my lifetime?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. He is much more in tune with the needs of industry than are Opposition Members.
Together with TECs we are putting in place a new framework to increase dramatically the incentives and opportunities available to individuals to train. We are creating the first ever proper national system of vocational qualifications in this country. We are changing the tax system to give individuals a tax incentive to train. We are building on our world lead in developing open and flexible learning. We are pioneering a system of career development loans to provide further help to individuals who wish to pay for their training.
The White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century" is a revolutionary package of measures for young people. Every young person leaving full-time education at 16 or 17 will have a training credit; will have access to the unified system of national vocational qualifications; will be able to have his achievement


recognised in a way that gives equal esteem to vocational and academic attainment; will have access to an independent and invigorated further education sector; and will have a national record of achievement, to set out what he has achieved in school, and to build on as he continues to learn throughout working life.
Many of these measures are revolutionary, not just in Britain but in a world context. Training credits are a world first. The reform of vocational qualifications, based on the standards of competence needed for real work in real working situations, is setting an example which other countries want to follow.
The Opposition have no credentials whatever to pontificate about training; their record in Government and in Opposition is one of abysmal failure. It is against that background that we must assess the proposals which they now put forward. Those policies would throw the great progress made since 1979 into complete reverse. Foremost among them is Labour's advocacy of compulsion for the training of young people—of legislating to ban thousands of jobs held by young people. Since Labour also plans to restore benefit entitlement to young people who refuse the offer of a training place, its plans would make it illegal for a young person to take a job without training, but perfectly acceptable for him to choose the dole without training.
That is the programme with which Labour approaches the 1990s. That is the future that it offers our young people. We have abolished the dismal route from school to the dole queue which so many of our young people used to follow. Labour would restore it and encourage people to take it. That is the banner under which the new model Labour party marches into the 1990s. But of course, that is not all. The hon. Member for Sedgefield has promised more money—£900 million of it—on television this morning. The only difficulty is that, every time the hon. Gentleman gets up to promise more money, the shadow Chief Secretary slaps him down and says he cannot have it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) referred earlier to the shadow Chief Secretary's appearance on "On the Record". I am sure that all who had the privilege of witnessing that will long treasure the experience—[HoN. MEMBERS: "It was brilliant."] The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said:
Only pensions and child benefits are commitments.
She said that Labour must be careful not to confuse commitments which mean something with goals which mean nothing at all. We should understand, she said, that the Labour party could plan to do something and say so publicly, but that that was in no sense an undertaking.

Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned about the time. The Secretary of State has been speaking for half an hour. Is it not about time that he finished?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I must be wholly neutral. Both Front Benches are tarred with the same brush in this regard.

Mr. Howard: I understand why Opposition Members do not want to listen. The hon. Lady said that Labour might hope to do this or have the intention to do that, but that none of those phrases amounted to a commitment. After all that, she said:

I want the public to judge us on what we are saying".
She talked about Labour's plans for education, health, social security, overseas aid, transport and even for lower taxation, but the hon. Member for Sedgefield should note that she did not once mention training or employment measures, nor did she ever utter the word "priority". I again invite the hon. Gentleman to say exactly where training comes on Labour's list. Is it a commitment or a priority? Is it a priority to which the Opposition are not committed, or a commitment to which they attach no priority?
We may have invented a new game. "Spot the ball" has nothing on "spot the pledge". The rules could be simple. The person who could rank in their correct order Labour's commitments, priorities, undertakings, aims, goals, desires, pledges, promises and objectives would win the prize. We would welcome employees of the Labour party and their families taking part, because they would have no more of a clue than anyone else.
At the next election, the British people will face a clear choice on—the issues of employment and training. It will be a choice between a Government who have created more jobs, more businesses and more wealth than ever before, and an Opposition committed to policies which would destroy millions of jobs, cripple our economy and wreck our future prospects. They will choose between a Government who have done more to advance training in Britain than any other Government this century—and an Opposition who have attacked and tried to undermine every step forward for training made in the past 12 years.
The choice will be between a Government bringing forward radical and necessary reforms to widen opportunity still further and to build upon the successes of the 1980s, and an Opposition determined to narrow choice, undermine excellence and lower quality, taking us back to the failed policies of the 1960s and 1970s. The British people will make that choice decisively, and this Government will remain to carry their mandate into the 1990s and beyond.

Mr. Huw Edwards: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in this crucial debate.
Like many hon. Members, I enter the House following the death of a Member, in my case Sir John Stradling Thomas. He represented the constituency for 21 years and, as hon. Members know, he was a popular and charming man and his death saddened many people. Before I took my seat, I had the honour to attend his memorial service in the Crypt where the Speaker, in a moving tribute, said that Sir John was proud to be a Welshman and proud to be the Member for Monmouth. I am also proud to be a Welshman and the Member for Monmouth.
I was born and brought up in a fine Welsh community, the Welsh community in London. One of the great advantages of being brought up in that community was that one developed an affection for all parts of Wales—the north, the south and the rural and urban areas. I also developed an affection for people in Welsh-speaking areas as well as for those in non-Welsh-speaking areas. Monmouth has such a mix of people. It has a small number of Welsh speakers and many who do not speak Welsh.
Monmouth is a beautiful constituency, as anyone who visits it will see. I do not need to tell hon. Members about


the beauty of the Usk, Wye and Llantony valleys because most of them visited the area during the by-election campaign. Monmouth has beautiful towns, villages and hamlets, one of which is Llanfihangel-Tor-Y-Mynnedd which I invite hon. Members to visit.
Monmouth is a rich farming area with a fine tradition in agriculture. Regrettably, many farmers have faced great difficulties in recent years. They have seen farm prices go down and their interest rates go up. The costs of farming have risen, and many people have left the land. Many farmers in Monmouth are worried that their children will not be able to inherit the farms, and they fear the consequences of losing the family tradition of farming. I hope that I can represent both the farming and the urban communities.
Like many beautiful constituencies, the beauty of Monmouth often masks some of its serious and growing problems. The recession is hitting people throughout the constituency and it affects people in the towns and villages as well as those who work in the private sector and farmers. They have seen the effects of high interest rates and ever growing unemployment. Unemployment in the constituency has risen by 43 per cent. since last June and it is affecting people throughout the constituency. What could be more insulting to the people of Monmouth who only a few years ago were constantly told about Wales's economic miracle than to be told now that those who are out of work are paying a price that is well worth paying to reduce inflation?
I wonder how the people who work in the American Express shop in Abergavenny felt when they were told that, after more than 20 years' service, they were to lose their jobs in six weeks. They did not receive an apology from the company or even much real warning. How did they feel with they were told that they were paying a price that is well worth paying even though their productivity and business increased this year? Such redundancies affect American Express in Neath and Swansea and other areas in south Wales.
Anyone who visits the constituency is welcome to go to the jobcentres in Monmouth and Abergavenny where they will see the jobs and the wage levels on offer. The rates are £2 or £2·50 an hour for vital jobs such as looking after sick people or working in private nursing homes. In such occupations, low pay is a massive problem. People despair when they look at the jobcentre advertisements offering £2·50 an hour. That is less than £100 a week, which is £80 to £90 net take-home pay. For years in the 1980s Ministers said that there was no problem of low pay. Amazingly, they now tell us that a minimum wage policy of only £130 a week, which is all that we are suggesting, would create massive unemployment. They cannot have it both ways.
Unemployment and low pay are inextricably linked, and we often hear the argument that low pay is better than no pay. Such an argument can be used to justify anything. How much below £130 a week do wages have to go? Pay of £6,500 a year when multiplied by three would buy nothing in the property market. People on such pay are totally excluded from that market, yet £130 a week is hardly generous; it is £3·40 an hour.
Figures from the Department of Employment show that in Gwent last year one in four men and six in 10 women earned less than the Council of Europe decency

threshold. I worked for the Low Pay Unit on those statistics, and that has had a great influence on me. I shall continue to advance such arguments in the House.
Last year in Gwent, 23 per cent. of women worked full time for less than £120 a week. There is no work ethic like the work ethic of the low-paid. Many of them are working for little more than they would receive on benefit. In effect, they are virtually volunteers, and that is a remarkable work ethic.
That evidence is proof, if proof were needed, that Britain must have a minimum wage policy. Britain is the only country in the EC without one. We have already lost minimum wage protection for people under 21 resulting in ridiculously low levels of pay, low levels of benefit and disqualification from benefit, and we have seen the effect of that on what is supposed to be a civilised society. Young people sleep in doorways in the Strand, destitute, a phenomenon which has arisen only in the past three or four years as the result of the Government's social security, employment and housing policies. That is an insult to a civilised society.
The fear of redundancy, in particular in the national health service, proved an important issue in the recent by-election. At the beginning of the campaign, Guy's hospital announced a possible 600 job losses and the same occurred in hospitals in Bradford. That raised considerable fears among people working in the health service in Monmouth, such as the Nevill Hall hospital and the Mount Pleasant hospital. People feared for the future of the health service and for their employment as a result of the Government's pressure to encourage all hospitals with more than 300 beds and all units to consider opt-out status.
I do not apologise for anything that was said in that campaign. I stand by what I said throughout. The Government's restructuring of the health service amounts to its fragmentation, a way of abrogating responsibility and of ensuring, if not immediately, in years to come, the hiving off of the less profitable areas of the health service, the chronic sector and long-term care, and the possibility —more than a possibility, I think—that the profitable areas could be ripe for takeover by some of the private health organisations such as American Medical International, Humana and BUPA. What guarantee is there that that will not happen should we have another Conservative Government? It was perfectly right to raise those fears and anxieties.
I spoke to many people in the campaign who work in the health service—good administrators, consultants, nurses, paramedical staff and ancillary staff. People at virtually all levels agreed with me that nearly all the principles of the NHS are now being violated as the result of the changes which are now going through. If hospitals want to ditch care of the chronically ill or the mentally ill, they may well do so. The principles of equality and comprehensive care is disappearing. We are having a two-tier system. General practitioners are saying that all the time. Unless general practitioners are budget holders, they will lose when it comes to getting people into local hospitals.
The principle of professional autonomy is disappearing. The medical profession is seeing a cultural revolution in the health service whereby power has gone from those with clinical expertise to those with managerial expertise —the supermarket philosophy. During flu: campaign, nothing could be said about the health service without


some of my opponents, and one in particular, using the analogy of the supermarket. When it comes to the NHS, people in my constituency and throughout Britain find supermarket analogies abhorrent.
The hospital that was the focus of the campaign is an ideal district general hospital. It sits under the hills in Abergavenny. Many of its patients come from Blaenau Gwent, Tredegar and Ebbw Vale, as do many of its staff. Tredegar and Ebbw Vale formed the spiritual birthplace of the NHS which established the principles of health care in Britain in the post-war period and those principles and values are widely shared throughout Monmouth and the country as a whole.
The by-election showed the country that those principles of equality, comprehensive provision, universality and collective responsibility are the values of the health service that the British people want to maintain, and I will use every opportunity in the House to advance those principles and to convey people's anxiety about the current restructuring of the health service. I shall continue to serve the constituents of Monmouth in the rural and urban areas to the very best of my ability.

Mr. Barry Porter: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards). He has shown a great commitment to his constituency, to his country and to his predecessor. I do not think that it is too excessive to say that his predecessor was a friend of mine. He was the deputy Chief Whip in this place. On one occasion, because of my views about one or two Government policies, he questioned my parentage, but in the nicest possible way.
I do not intend to question the Government's policy tonight, but I have been somewhat disappointed. I am sorry that I was unable to visit Monmouth, but after my appearance in Ribble Valley and what happened there, I thought that it was as well to keep away. I can understand the hon. Gentleman making his maiden speech on the health service, but I hope that he will excuse me if I do not follow him on that. I understood that the debate was on training and employment, but that is a matter for the hon. Gentleman. However, I had hoped for something rather better from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), whom I had hoped would address himself to that topic.
I went to the great length for me of listening to what the hon. Gentleman said. As I understand it, he said that there is a recession and it is the Government's fault and that the London Business School and Cambridge Econometrics say that it will get worse. He then referred to the bit of the OECD forecast which happened to suit his argument, but not, I fear, to the rest. The OECD has the best possible record in forecasting. It gets it right more often than not. It suggests that there will be an increase in economic activity next year, a decrease in inflation and interest rates and that the United Kingdom economy will look rather better than it is at the moment. I do not pretend that it is wonderful at the moment, but then I never pretend that the Government can make things more wonderful or less miserable than most people. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who has gone off for his dinner, should suggest that that is the case.
I waited with eager anticipation for the great miracle, but I waited in vain. We had no more than a garbled speech attacking the Government and their economic

policies, and attacking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for making every possible effort to deal with the immediate problems of unemployment, whether they be short-term or long-term.
I find it a little distasteful that a party which in the past has made something of a reputation, and probably a deserved reputation, for itself out of its concern for working men and women and their prospects of employment immediately and in the long term, should then imply, but no more than that, that there is some miracle cure whereby, on the election of a Labour Government, there will be no unemployment. I appreciate that that was not said "in terms", and I cannot be bothered to analyse what was said to Brian Walden a week last Tuesday. But that is not the point: I am talking about the impression that people receive—about general perceptions. I hope that other hon. Members will agree that it is unfair to suggest that any Government, whatever their political colour, can snap their fingers and cure the problem of unemployment.
Let us go back to 1979. I remember the Conservative party poster that told us "Labour Isn't Working"; I suppose that we won the 1979 general election partly as a result of that poster. In those days, we all believed, or purported to believe, that Governments were capable of creating full employment. The Conservative Government believed that in 1970–71, when things started to go wrong—but we too were wrong, and we lost the election in 1974.
Let me tell the Labour party—if it does not mind my offering advice to "this great movement of ours"—that it cannot do it again. Would it not be better if, rather than Labour yah-booing across the Chamber and us boo-yahing back, the whole House admitted that at a time of perpetual change it is best not to pretend that we can solve the problems tomorrow? What we can use are the training systems outlined by the Secretary of State. Perhaps they could be better; perhaps more money could be available; perhaps other ideas could be advanced. But it does no one any good to say, "Your ideas are rubbish." It is clear from what the Secretary of State has said that the Conservative party has gone to enormous lengths to try to solve the unemployment problem, in both the long and the short term. I should have thought that it has done that as well as any party could have.
What positive contribution was made by the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield—not to the problem whether we win or lose the next election but to the problems of the people out there who really lose their jobs, and must face not only that but the possibility of their children losing theirs? He did not say a word about that. Over the past 12 years, we have tried to do what we can. Let us get this into perspective. It is not as though the United Kingdom's problem were unique; it is not, as has already been spelt out. No doubt the London Business School and the Liverpool School of Economics could explain why. Certainly there is no point in my boring the House with the statistics: we know that this is a problem that affects the western industrialised world.
What everyone should know, however, is that there is not a socialist solution to the problem of unemployment. I should have thought that that was self-evident, following the developments in central and eastern Europe. Moreover, I am sorry to have to tell Opposition Members that countries such as Japan and Taiwan, which employ vast numbers, do not do so by means of a minimum wage.
I am merely asking Opposition Members to be realistic about one thing. There will not be a general election this month, or in October; I trust that there will not be one until next spring. Can we get rid of the current hysteria and try to do something for the people we purport to represent—the unemployed? The Secretary of State has admitted, very properly, that we loosened the reins too much in 1987. I cannot remember any Opposition Member saying at the time that it was all very wicked, although I may be wrong about that. The way out of the problem, however—for most of the unemployed, at any rate—is lower inflation, lower interest rates, an increase in economic activity and more profits. As someone once said—I forget the name now—"There is no other way."

Mr. Ron Leighton: It gives me great pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) on a fine and moving maiden speech. It was outstanding—the best maiden speech that I have ever heard. My hon. Friend is a worthy victor of an outstanding by-election, and we look forward to hearing him speak many times in the future.
The Select Committee on Employment published a report today on employment prospects, which I urge all hon. Members to read. I will not say much more about it, because I believe that we are to debate it on Estimates day; suffice it to say that, according to the CBI, business optimism is now at its lowest for 10 years, and that the Institute of Directors told us that it had never known such bad employment numbers.
As all the witnesses agree, unemployment will rocket for the rest of the year, and will continue to do so next year—certainly until the next election, whether or not that takes place when the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) said it would.
The Government are deliberately using unemployment as a weapon of economic policy. Deflation does not work in a mysterious way; it works by causing unemployment. The blunt club of high interest rates imposed over a long period strangles the economy, deliberately induces recession and causes mass unemployment; and, the Government hope, eventually reduces inflation.
Any fool can reduce inflation by inducing a recession. The successful policy is one that controls inflation while retaining a high level of employment. The present Government have failed to do that for 12 years. They say that their action is necessary to squeeze out inflation, but who put it there in the first place? We experienced one Government-induced recession in the early 1980s, which destroyed 20 per cent. of industry and inflicted unemployment of another 2 million to solve the problem of inflation. There has been a Conservative Government ever since. Why, then, has inflation returned? Because of the crass errors caused by Government economic mismanagement.
In 1988 there was a giveaway Budget, the "big bang" of financial deregulation and the consequent credit binge. Now, after all the pain and suffering of the early 1980s, we must go through it all again. There is no need for any of us to talk about the pain and human suffering that unemployment causes; we have had a graphic and vivid illustration in the interview in Vanity Fair with the former

Prime Minister, who explained exactly how much devastation it produces. After 12 years, the Government are squirming with embarrassment at their failure. The Prime Minister said that there would be no recession. When the recession came, he and the Chancellor said that it would be short and shallow. Now, the Chancell3r claims to discern vague stirrings in the economy. Could anything be more pathetic?
We have had 12 years of Conservative Government, 12 years to get it right. We have had 12 years of the North sea oil bonanza and privatisation receipts, yet wt; have a country flat on its back, in deep recession, with the whole of its industry crying with pain. There are redundancies everywhere and unemployment will continue to rocket for as far ahead as anyone can see. We also have a yawning skills gap with our main competitors which is growing wider all the time, and the virtual collapse of training in many industries.
In those circumstances, traditionally we look to the Department of Employment, which hitherto has been an honourable Department. However, we now find the repellant sight of the Secretary of State who oozes complacency and indifference to the unemployed with every utterance suggests that it does not matter and that things are not so bad. As a monetarist, instead of seeking an expansion of the economy, he seems to be urging his Cabinet colleagues to strangle the economy even further. Instead of standing up for his Department's budget, he lays down and encourages the Treasury to walk all over him. He has presided over huge cuts in the Department's budget for adult and youth training.
The previous Secretary of State used to laud employment training. He said:
ET is the largest, most ambitious programme ever undertaken in its scope and the opportunity it offers.
It was intended to take 600,000 people in any one year. We all remember the propaganda at the time about fitting workers without jobs to jobs without workers. We do not hear much about that now. Instead, there are cuts in ET. The Secretary of State says that the unemployed do not need training.
The Secretary of State launched the training and enterprise councils. The launch was accompanied—he did not disagree with the figure I gave when I intervened during his speech—by large cuts in the budgets of TECs. What a way to encourage and bolster the voluntary activity of those who are giving their time to the TECs. He knows that at the time of the autumn statement the TEC chairman urged him not to cut the budget. Yet he announced a cut of £365 million of which he has now put back only one third. Since then, unemployment has rocketed for 14 consecutive months. The Secretary of State has not obtained a penny piece for the unemployed.
As a result of all that, there is a crisis within the TECs and among the training providers, almost all of whom are having to make many of their trainers redundant. Training for special needs in many parts of the country has come to a complete stop. Does the Secretary of State know that this afternoon the Select Committee took evidence from the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders? It announced that it is making 600 trainers redundant.
I have a letter from a chief executive of a TEC which says that many TECs are doing nothing for women returners. It says that many TECs discriminate—the Secretary of State can have a copy of the letter if he wishes


—against women returners because they would have to pay £50 child allowance. Where is the Secretary of State? Where is the battle for a counter-cyclical increase in his training budget? Does he care that training in many industries is collapsing?
For example, the bottom has fallen out of the construction industry. Many firms are going bust. Anyone who does not believe that should look at what is happening in docklands. Construction employers tell me that an extra 100,000 construction workers will be unemployed this year. Does the Secretary of State know that this year there has been a drop of 75 per cent. in apprentices registered in construction? Does he care about that, and is he doing anything about it?
I spoke to the printing employers yesterday. They are now renegotiating youth training with 82 TECs. That is a problem for them. They told me that this year, as a result of smaller cash incentives to firms which are suffering in the recession, there will be a 50 per cent. reduction in youth training in the printing industry. Does the Secretary of State tolerate it?
The country will face increased competition. Where is all the propaganda about gearing up for 1992? If we cut training in the printing industry by 50 per cent., the Germans will wipe the floor with us. They are doing so already. What will the Secretary of State do about that? When disasters and catastrophes are put under his nose, he pretends that he cannot see them and that they are not happening. In fact, he makes trite little comments suggesting that everything is all right. We had an example of that for half an hour this evening. Everything is not all right. It is going from bad to worse. As Secretary of State for Employment, it is his job to do something about it and to stand up and defend his Department's budget, which he is not doing.
I now deal with engineering. I have a document from the Engineering Employers Federation which states:
present YT funding policies are reversing the important gains made in YTS.
The Government should be coming up with counter-cyclical expenditure on training, which is counter inflationary. However, instead of standing up and fighting its corner, the Department of Employment is actively conniving with the short-termism of the Treasury. That is what we have come to after 12 years of Conservative government. The Government have run the country into a quagmire, and youth training is certainly suffering. The Government are not honouring the youth training guarantee.
Not long ago, we were told that the most urgent problem seemed to be a 33 per cent. drop in the number of school leavers. Now, because of the recession, every budget is being cut and all recruitment is being stopped, and, instead of a shortage of youngsters, there is a surplus, despite the fact that there has been a drop of 33 per cent. Youngsters are now leaving school with no job, no YT place and no benefit. That is happening in my constituency and in the London borough of Newham as a whole.
I hope that the Minister of State is paying attention. During the previous Employment questions I asked him about youngsters who were leaving school in Newham with no YT place. He said that I was misinformed. I try not to be misinformed, so I went back to the borough of Newham and got the figures. At that time, there were 312 young people leaving school in Newham with no job and with no YT place. I immediately wrote a letter to the

Minister of State, but I am still waiting for a reply. Why have I not received one and why have I had no apology? I was not ill-informed and I can tell him that the figure has increased. There are now 384 young people in Newham with no job and no YT place. I want him to answer and to reply to my letter.
The Minister might also note that unemployment in my constituency increased by 40 per cent. in the last 12 months. The training boards have been abolished, so there is now no statutory duty on employers to train. Instead, there are supposed to be voluntary industry training organisations, but whatever happened to those organisations? The truth is that most of them are ineffective, underfunded and understaffed—they are run by two men and a dog. What interest do the Government show in them? Virtually none at all.
I have a briefing from the organisation set up for engineering. It states that the Government show no interest in it, only in the TECs. It states:
What it has not so far specifically done is to give the same active, high profile support for the job that the industry training organisations will do as it has for the important work of the TECs. Clear public commitment of this kind would strengthen the influence of the new bodies.
Where is the Government's commitment to the industry training organisations? There is none. It is patently and blatantly obvious that this is a Government of failure. There is a yawning and widening skills gap which the Government's inaction is compounding.
The public have come to realise that we have a blinkered Government of dogma and false ideology who have failed. The public see the signs of that failure all around them in their everyday lives. They know that we, as a nation, can do better and that to do so we shall need a new Government. The people know that, and the Government know that the people know that. That is why the Government are frightened to have a general election, but they cannot put it off for ever. They must eventually meet their maker—the electorate—and when they do, they will surely reap retribution for the misery of the mass unemployment that they have inflicted on this country and for their failure to achieve an educated work force which will enable this country to compete in the modern world.

Mr. Simon Coombs: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). He was in his usual characteristically lively form. He has the old socialist principle behind him that one must spend money on a problem and that the more money one spends on it, the more virile is one's attitude and one's position. When the hon. Gentleman calls the Government dogmatic, I remind him that the policies of the Labour party never change: it simply seeks to spend more and more of the taxpayers' money on any problem.
The Government reacted to the problems of the early 1980s by creating the training programme to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State referred. Now they have taken the radical approach of examining that training programme to find out whether it is delivering value for money. They have changed their policy in order to concentrate more on advice and guidance for the unemployed, rather than imagining that people who have been trained once and lose their job need yet more training.
The Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen should not fall into the trap of believing that only more and more training will solve the problems of the unemployed. They should not forget enterprise, which is in danger of being the Cinderella of the debate. They should not forget that the people who are losing their jobs at present, particularly in the south-east, already have a high level of skill and had been trained extensively in the work they did. The answer is not always that which the Opposition suggest in their dogmatic fashion.
I come to the debate as one of the stars of the misery index—that is to say, the curious figures sent out every month by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). As I have the sixth largest constituency in the country, inevitably it has a fairly large raw unemployment figure. Fortunately, it is still lower than when I was first elected in 1983. However, I follow the logic of the hon. Member for Sedgefield up to this point. If indeed there is a direct correlation between the level of unemployment and the majority of hon. Members in the House, the fact that unemployment in my constituency is less than half what it was in 1983 when I won the seat leads me to the conclusion that I shall be returned at the general election, whenever it comes, with an increased majority. I do not know exactly how the reverse formula works, but I should have at least double the majority.
As I said in The Guardian this morning, people are not so naive as to judge a Government after 12 years on a single issue. Opposition Members who pin all their hopes on unemployment—it has been made clear in the debate that that is what they are doing—will find that the people of Britain are a little more subtle and sensitive in their judgments and will not be content simply to judge the Government on one set of figures, however inaccurately and misleadingly those figures are presented by the Opposition Front bench team.
I wish to make a few remarks about the causes of the difficulties that we are experiencing in Britain. On Monday this week, I asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster a question about the position of the banks, their attitude to small businesses and the rates of interest that they charge for loans. I am delighted to say that, within 24 hours, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) raised exactly the same point in Prime Minister's Question Time, when we learned the satisfying news that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would meet and talk to the leading clearing banks.
At a time when interest rates have fallen by 3·5 per cent. since last October, it is extraordinary that the banks have increased their interest rates and effective lending rates to small businesses in my constituency and elsewhere by as much as 6, 7 or 8 per cent. above the base rate now obtaining in Britain. The banks give as a reason the difficulties that they have experienced in lending to third-world countries. I accept that one must consider that argument, but when one is told that the interest charged to small business in my constituency and elsewhere must be kept high because such firms are a high risk, one asks which is the chicken and which is the egg.
How does arbitrarily raising interest rates help to reduce the risk of small businesses going out of business and causing more unemployment? I hope that the discussions that are to take place between my right hon.

Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the banks will lead to a different attitude being taken by those lenders who have contributed in their way to some of the problems that this country currently faces.
In Swindon, I have the additional problem of the attitude adopted by the Labour-controlled council, which for the past five years has pursued a policy of preventing employment growth. The council argues that green undeveloped land on the outskirts of the town should be protected, and that, unless the town's infrastructure can catch up, it would be wrong to allow growth to continue. However, it does not argue that the growth that has occurred in my constituency over the past 20 years has turned it from a safe Labour seat into a Conservative seat. It would be unworthy of me even to suggest that that might have anything to do with the council's thinking.
The consequence of the council's policies is that the additional jobs that could have been created by new companies moving into the town—in accordance with the pattern that was seen for 20 years without a break—have come to an end. People who lost their jobs in the past 14 months do not have the hope of new employment that would exist but for the mistaken policy of the local Labour-controlled council.
As my right hon. and learned Friend said, there is more to offer the unemployed than training—but when the alternatives are read out, it creates only amusement on the Opposition Benches. The hon. Member for Sedgefield was present in the Chamber a moment ago, but now he is not. If he were in his place, he would have an opportunity to apologise to all those people working in the employment service who dedicate their best efforts to helping the unemployed with the interviews that the hon. Gentleman so mockingly denigrated.
Labour has become the party of instant action—but instant action is nearly always the wrong action. Labour denounce the Government when they suggest that consultation could be useful or that they are considering an issue. Labour want only instant action. The instant action they want now is for large quantities of money to be thrown at the problem of the unemployed—although the Opposition's own shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury says that they cannot have that money anyway.
There is some sense in talking to an unemployed person before sending him or her on a training course. There is some sense in finding out what skills he or she already has, and in trying to match the individual's needs to the job opportunities that exist.
The White Paper on education and training for the 21st century that was published last week belies the Opposition's suggestion that the Government are running out of new ideas. That White Paper enthusiastically endorses the extension of training credit vouchers, which are being taken up all over the country with great interest—particularly by those training and enterprise councils that are piloting the scheme.
I spoke last night to the chairman of the Bradford TEC, who said that, putting the purchasing power of a voucher in young people's hands was the best possible news because, for the first time, they are in control of their destiny. The scheme is being taken up enthusiastically in pilot areas, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will soon decide to extend it across the country, where it will be widely welcomed. The White Paper makes it clear that that is the direction in which the Government are going.
I am delighted about the White Paper's commitment further to extend education compacts, which are the right way of bridging the gap between education and industry. Once again, it was bitterly opposed by the Opposition.
The Opposition's policies are designed only to increase unemployment. Had they been in power during the 1987 stock market crash, they would have reflated the economy far more than we did. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) was present earlier and was challenged about that; he wriggled and giggled, but had no answer to the fact that, in November 1987, he clearly said that the Labour party would reflate the economy more than the Government. The effect would have been higher inflation.
I do not suggest that a Labour party's reaction to ever higher inflation would have been a deflationary policy, but it would have led to a run on currency, which would have forced it into a high interest rate policy whether it liked it or not. The effect would have been higher deflation and a higher rise in unemployment. We would have been in a position to say to Labour Members, "You got it wrong," as they say to us, but let them never forget that, in late 1987, they believed that we should have gone further with the mistake that we made at that time. Labour Members are the last people to criticise us in that respect.
It is not only the policies that they advocated then that would be disastrous for this country. The national minimum wage is written off by almost everybody who takes an interest in the subject. Trade unionists are anxious to persuade the Labour party not to indulge in that policy. I ask the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) to read the collected thoughts of Mr. Gavin Laird and Mr. Bill Jordan, who are clear on the subject. They say, "Please don't do it." The shadow Chancellor, when asked about the effect of the national minimum wage, said "Maybe one or two people might lose their jobs." Does he not take any notice of what is said by the trade unions, who still seek to run the Labour party?

Mr. Dalyell: As the hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr. Gavin Laird and Mr. Bill Jordan, he will acknowledge that both were against that was done to the engineering industry training board. They believe in training as it was in the engineering industry, which was very beneficial to my constituency.

Mr. Coombs: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I always listen carefully to what he has to say, but that was not germane to the point that I was developing. However, it shows that, once something is set in concrete, Opposition Members never seek to change it. No radical spirit is left in the Labour party. It can try only to preserve and conserve. Perhaps we should call it the Conservative party, because that is what it is. It has no ideas for the future only ideas of the past.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East intervened briefly from a sedentary position to say that 11 European countries support the social action programme, but that is not right. Eleven European countries signed the social charter, but if he studies debates in the European Community on the implementation of the charter by draft directives, he will see that there is growing concern about the implications of those proposals for employment.
The Labour party's policies in the future, as in the past, will only drive up the level of unemployment, whereas

Conservative policies, by reducing inflation and boosting competitiveness vis-a-vis our partners in Europe and elsewhere, will help to increase prosperity and reduce unemployment, which we rightly regard as a scourge. The Labour party does not understand that. It never has and it never will, because it does not understand the nature of competition.
Our policies are now working. Inflation is coming down and so are interest rates. On the strength of that, in due course, the next general election will be won by the present Government.

Mr. Michael Carr: It is clear that unemployment is now out of control. The Department of Employment's internal projections are reported as forecasting that 2·6 million people will be out of work by October, and most outside economists expect unemployment to rise above 3 million by March 1992. Moreover, the longer-term outlook is bleak, with unemployment likely to plateau at such levels under present policies. That is hardly a sign of bottoming out, and is certainly not a reason to predict an economic revival early next year. In view of the Prime Minister's grandiose early statements about a classless society, we might have been forgiven for thinking that the economic mismanagement of the Thatcher decade would be remedied forthwith. However, the announcement of a 40 per cent. cut in the employment training budget hardly seems an appropriate first step.
It is scandalous, when unemployment is rising faster than in any other EC country, that the Government saw fit to cut public funding of training. Under this Government, Britain is less skilled, less well educated and less well trained than all our major competitors.
The unemployment figures in themselves are worrying, but they hide more sinister statistics. The real price of unemployment is increased poverty, a rise in homelessness, a deterioration in the nation's health, the deskilling of thousands of our citizens and the cost to the public purse. The Prime Minister has pledged that the Government will be a caring Government, yet his Chancellor of the Exchequer has let slip the fact that Government economic policy is deliberately adding to unemployment in order to reduce inflation. The Chancellor's remark that unemployment was a price "well worth paying" rightly shocked many people, and showed how little the Government are prepared to do to combat high and rising unemployment.
Liberal Democrats fully understand the importance of reducing inflation, but we do no accept that the price for that needs to be a return to mass unemployment. Other countries, such as Germany, the Netherlands, Japan arid the United States, run their economies with lower unemployment and lower inflation, and avoid the high price that the Government seem prepared to pay.
The debate on unemployment in the recession has so far completely ignored the real-world price of unemployment. The most immediate effect of the rise in unemployment will be an increase in poverty. Not only unemployed people, but their families and those who depend on their wages will suffer.
In the 1970s, low pay was accepted as the root cause of poverty. However, figures based on Department of Social Security data were released last month by the Campaign for Work, and they clearly show that unemployment was a key characteristic of poverty in the 1980s. Those figures


show that, although poverty is often, rightly, associated with groups such as pensioners, the disabled and lone parents, by far the most common characteristic of the poor is being out of work. Before unemployment finally started to fall after the previous recession, more than 50 per cent. of the poorest families were afflicted by unemployment. It is symptomatic of the way in which people are discussing unemployment in this recession that those figures have not been widely reported.
Such comprehensive figures for the previous recession have only become available in the past year or two, so it is unlikely that data for the effects on poverty of this recession will be available for some time. However, the clear message from the experience of the 1980s is that the recent increase in unemployment will put back the fight against poverty in Britain by several years if the present failure to tackle unemployment persists.
The Government compounded the misery of poverty and strengthened the link between it and unemployment through their social security and taxation policies of the 1980s. Those policies have resulted in a large reduction in the real value of safety net benefits and make poverty an increasing likelihood for many thousands more on the dole. Not only has the real value of unemployment and related benefits been cut since 1979 by about 5 per cent., but the benefit system itself has become more restictive in its regulations and has been starved of the resources that it needs for administrative efficiency. For much of the late 1980s, the Government's policy seemed to be to blame the unemployed for being out of work and then to penalise them through their social security policies.
Many other aspects of the Government's social security and taxation policies will mean that unemployment may be even more closely linked to poverty in this recession. The Government admit, for example, that the poll tax will be with us until at least 1993, with unemployed people liable for at least 20 per cent. of their poll tax bills. The unemployed will now pay water charges, whereas under the rate rebate and supplementary benefit system, they were protected. Such social security and taxation policy changes come on top of measures in other policy areas, which have tended to affect the unemployed disproportionately. Council house rents and rents for private accommodation have increased by well above the rate of inflation. Public transport has suffered from underfunding and from above-inflation price rises.
The evidence linking unemployment with policy could not be clearer; nor can anyone have any doubts about the impact on the unemployed of various policy changes, especially in social security. In terms of poverty, the social costs of unemployment were high during the recession of the 1980s; in this recession, they will be even higher.
In the 1980s and 1990s, homelessness has been closely associated with joblessness. Between 75 and 80 per cent. of homeless people are out of work. Although that may not be surprising, it is important to recognise the vicious circle that is immediately created. Once someone is trapped by homelessness, for whatever reason, employment is hard to come by. That in turn makes securing proper accommodation almost impossible.
The figures for repossessions in 1990, when repossessions almost trebled to 43,890, illustrates the changing nature of home ownership since the last recession. As the Council of Mortgage Lenders has commented:
Unemployment has proved of greater importance this time round and now accounts for almost 10 per cent. of (new) homelessness cases. This is an indication only of the cases where unemployment was cited as the direct cause of homelessness. In many of the other cases unemployment contributed quite substantially to the family/relationship break-ups which account for 60 per cent. of homelessness.
Such evidence highlights the human misery that is caused by unemployment. Unemployment causes stress which in turn, causes family disputes which, in turn, can cause homelessness. The social costs of unemployment can be a vicious spiral of personal misfortune—a vicious spiral that leads to a deep national problem.
There is a general recognition that unemployment represents a deskilling processs, with individuals losing touch with the labour market and finding that their skills become less and less relevant to the market's needs. Those economic consequences are alarming enough, but they pale beside some of the health implications of long-term unemployment. Research is increasingly showing the damaging effects of unemployment on an individual's mental and physical health.
The longitudinal study of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which links death records with the 1971 and 1981 census data, reveals that the death rates of unemployed men and their wives were 21 per cent. above the national average. It is expected that that trend will be reaffirmed by this year's census. A link between suicides and unemployment has also been established. A study in Edinburgh from 1978 to 1982 showed that suicide attempts were 11 times more likely among unemployed people than those in work.
The economic costs of unemployment are also many and varied. They include the direct cost of unemployment to the Exchequer through a higher number of claimants and lower tax receipts, as well as many indirect costs. Despite the meanness of current benefit policy, the social security costs of unemployment are high. The Department of Social Security's expenditure plans show that, for an increase of 100,000 in the number of unemployed, social security payments increase by £305 million.
We hear stories of training credits. They undoubtedly have some merit, but they must be seen in the context of the statistics I mentioned. In Sweden, £12,000 is committed to the training of each unemployed person. The Government are mooting a figure of £1,500. That shows that, in Sweden, unemployment is seen as an opportunity to retrain and reskill the work force. Unfortunately, the Government see unemployment as an economic necessity and as a political irritant.
The loss to the economy of deskilling many members of the work force is particularly serious because the effects can last for years. We believe that training is the key to ensuring that the long-term levels of unemployment fall. Filling skills vacancies with skilled workers seems to be no longer the main aim of Government employment policies. The Government also seem reluctant to recognise the need to retrain those already in work. If Britain is to keep pace in the world economy, one that will increasingly demand a skilled and technologically advance work force, the Government must commit substantial funds to education and training now.

Mr. Henry McLeish: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend from Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) for his maiden speech. It was an eloquent, reasoned and dignified contribution, and we all welcome the fact that he mentioned, with fond memories, the previous Member for that constituency. We look forward to many contributions of that quality in the years to come.
This has been an interesting debate, as two worlds have collided in their perception of training and the unemployed in this country. The excellent speech from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) injected a dose of reality into the debate, but I found the speech of the Secretary of State for Employment simply remarkable. We were treated to a story of no cuts—just adjustments—the most comprehensive provision for the unemployed, record-breaking achievements, the best training provision this century and revolutionary methods. That world may be inhabited by the Secretary of State for Employment, but it is not inhabited by Labour Members and those outside the House.
The key issue is why, after creating unemployment, the Government are effectively doing nothing to help the unemployed. Why is it that, after acknowledging publicly the depth of the skills crisis, the Government have cut the training budget? Why is it that, after 12 years of Conservative government, Britain is less equipped than any nation in Europe to embrace the challenges, respond to the changes and improve our competitiveness in the new economic realities of the 1990s? Why are the Government unable and unwilling to tackle the issues which are immediate and urgent and which lie at the heart of Britain's future in the 21st century?
The debate has rightly focused on the importance of the recession. It has focused on the breaking of guarantees to young people and adults. It has focused on the selling out of the TECs after they were offered such a warm send-off. They were not advised that they would have no responsibilities or proper cash provision. We have focused on the scandal of special needs. It is morally objectionable for the Government to seek to cut funds from the schemes that provide not only skills but social support to the most vulnerable in the community. Will the Under-Secretary refer to that point?
Unemployment is a crisis. Put simply, Britain's labour market is in total disarray. That is the legacy of 12 wasted years in which the Government have been in office. We were not informed in their manifestos of 1979, 1983 and 1987 that mass unemployment would be a permanent characteristic of their economic policies. Rather, we were offered economic miracles and the Chancellor confirmed that we are experiencing one.
We were offered industrial renaissance, and the deposed former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) talked about the rebirth of Britain. If that is the case, why are we in such an appalling economic mess, with recession deep, levels of economic activity low, and disillusionment with the Government's ability to cope so widespread?
I shall focus in the remaining few minutes on the Government's unemployment record. The Government cannot now trade excuses in public. They cannot blame scapegoats or find anyone on whom to pin the responsibilities that they have discharged so ineffectively

over the past decade. Why is unemployment now rising faster in Britain than anywhere else in Europe? In Europe in the past year, unemployment among the under-25s has been, on average, 1 per cent., whereas in Britain it has been 32 per cent. Why has unemployment in Britain increased by 100 per cent. since 1979? Why have the number of vacancies slumped by over 26 per cent. and why have the number of people chasing each job increased by 136 per cent.? That does not smack of an economic miracle but of something quite different.
Although the Government make great play with their employment growth record, which is the other side of the labour market coin, it is stripped of double jobbers and training places. The Government have created only 460,000 part-time jobs in 12 years. What kind of a record is that to be parading around Britain? It is the worst record of employment growth among OECD countries. I challenge the Government to respond to those statistics, because I always use their statistics, courtesy of the computer at the Department of Employment. The Labour party will continue to take advantage of that excellent facility.
Why have we now lost 2,112,000 manufacturing jobs and 163,000 construction industry jobs? That does not smack of an economic miracle for those in manufacturing, who now find themselves with no future in that area.
Why have apprenticeships in the manufacturing industry slumped from 266,000 in 1979 to a miserable 87,000 in December 1990? The crisis in manufacturing is that training has been ripped out of it, and we now have very few apprenticeships, while countries such as Germany, France and Scandinavia are pushing forward. They see a future and they invest. In the early 1960s, in periods of Conservative Governments, there was always a slump in the number of vacancies. Why did we have the highest unemployment this April since the 1930s?
It must be submitted that that is not the stuff of which miracles are made. Day in and day out, we are still told that the Government have created employment and that things are not so bad. This evening, the Secretary of State for Employment suggested that a commitment made in Scotland to eliminate unemployment was still on their agenda. If that is so, the Scots see little chance of it becoming a reality.
To find a microcosm of the panic measures and the ineffectiveness of Government economic policy in this country, we need look no further than London, which we discussed earlier today. The conning of the capital by the Conservatives during the past decade is simply breathtaking. Why is it that, in London, vacancies have slumped by 75 per cent. in a decade? Why is it that unemployment has risen by 300 per cent—not doubled, but trebled? Why has the number of people in London chasing each job increased by 1,000 per cent.? Londoners have been conned by a Government unwilling to tell the story that is now unfolding as we approach the general election.
Of course, the Government always respond by saying, "What about our jobs record?" What about it? Figures published by the Department suggest that, excluding training places, 40,000 jobs have been created in Britain's capital city in 10 years—4,000 jobs a year for a population of 6 million or 7 million. That is a simply breathtaking statistic when viewed in relation to the Government's claims made day in and day out.
We ask simple questions. Why is it that, faced with 2·6 million unemployed in October and possibly 3 million


unemployed next year, the Government will provide no cash for a temporary work scheme? Why, when faced with a deepening skills crisis, will the Government not reinstate the £400 million cuts that have been made? Why, when the training and enterprise councils flagship is in danger of sinking, is there no funding or leadership from the Government? After 12 years, why do we have a labour market which is in disarray and has no strategic overview?

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLeish: No.
The answer to all those questions is no, no, no—because the Government simply do not care about what is happening. The Prime Minister has been attacked for his dithering. I can say with sincerity that the Secretary of State for Employment and his Ministers are dithering and drifting and not providing the direction that is badly needed in Britain.
Other Ministers have tried to help the unemployed. There have been various changes, including fiddling the figures and removing people from the unemployed figures. The restart scheme, which involved recycling, was introduced by Lord Young of Graffham. There was ridicule when it was suggested that we should train the workers without jobs to fill the jobs without workers. The removal, recycling and ridicule are now to be followed by amazing inactivity.
Tonight, we have heard that our attack on the Government's employment record is hurting. The misery index has been mentioned, and we have heard overtures this evening to suggest that we should have a truce until next year. I offer Conservative Members a helpline. We are willing to listen to them and give them the statistics that the Government will not. If they phone my office, we shall not ask them to leave their name. They can remain anonymous: they need merely leave their majority and the number of their constituents on the dole—we shall do the rest.
We know that the Government's record on both jobs and unemployment is deplorable. We need a change of Government before we can tackle the problems ahead of us. The only unemployment that we want to see is among Ministers and Conservative Members. To that end, we shall fight and win the election, and give skills and the jobless a high priority in a Labour Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): I start by apologising for missing part of the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I know that he will accept my reason for not being here as I was returning from a visit to the Federal Republic of Germany, where I was studying training arrangements in that country. I answered many interested questions from the Germans about recent developments in our training policy, particularly training credits, which the Germans view positively and about which they were very encouraging.
I shall try to answer some of the questions posed by hon. Members during the debate, then offer one or two reflections on what is revealed by the exchanges on unemployment between the parties.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) on his maiden speech and, as other hon. Members did, on the fitting words that he used about his distinguished predecessor. I must say that I disagreed with what he had to say about the minimum wage. He should attend to the question put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State about the job destruction effects of a minimum wage to the hon. Member for Sedgefield—a question that was not answered. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps answer it; I hope that he will take it seriously. He will find that it pays in this House to listen carefully to what each of us has to say and then to do intellectual justice to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) made a thoughtful speech with whose tone and substance I very much agreed, but I shall return later to some of what he had to say.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), the Chairman of the Select Committee, claimed that the youth training guarantee is not being honoured. I apologise for not yet having replied to his letter about YT opportunities in Newham. I shall ask for a draft tomorrow and reply as soon as I can thereafter. I emphasise that the Government are firmly committed to that youth training guarantee. This year we have increased spending on YT even though the number of young people has fallen by 5 per cent. The hon. Gentleman's assertion about the guarantee cannot be true globally speaking, however, for the simple reason that we have not reached the end of the school year and thus do not yet know how many claims will have been made on YT.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) referred to alleged breaches of the guarantee, too. That was a bit rich coming from a member of a party that failed when in power to offer any guarantees to the unemployed.

Mr. McLeish: Is the Minister prepared to state that there is no TEC area in the country in which the guarantee is not being honoured?

Mr. Jackson: I have already explained that that does not arise until we know how many school leavers there are. We are firmly committed to the guarantee, and we will discharge it.
I particularly agreed with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) about the Employment Service and its value in advising and counselling the unemployed. The mocking words of the hon. Member for Sedgefield about the service were a serious misjudgment. He will find that all the professionals in the field will confirm the value of this kind of assistance. Every month, the Employment Service places about 100,000 unemployed people in work, and Opposition Members would do well to support this work, not to denigrate it.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) went on at considerable length about things that we already know about unemployment, but he conspicuously failed to come up with positive suggestions about what to do about it—and I very much regret that.
What I want to say next is perhaps a little unusual for a wind-up speech on an occasion such as this. One of the most interesting features of the debate has been the extent of the common ground between Government and Opposition. Some obvious common ground is to be found in our shared concern about unemployment and about the


position in which unemployed people find themselves. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley should not claim a monopoly of concern for himself or his party.
Moreover, there is considerable common ground about what should be done and what can be done to help the unemployed. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South was so right about that. There is no dispute between the Government and the Opposition about the importance of fighting inflation, either. The Opposition have come to accept the Government's view that there is no trade-off to be made between higher inflation and lower unemployment: we cannot spend our way out of unemployment.
Secondly, reference to a pay policy was conspicuously absent from the speeches of the hon. Members for Sedgefield and for Fife, Central. The Opposition, in short, accept the Government's view that state intervention in pay bargaining is not the right way to fight unemployment. That too is a major piece of common ground.

Mr. James Wallace: The Minister said that he agreed with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) said about unemployment causing homelessness, poverty and ill health. We do not think that such a price is worth paying, but the Chancellor does. That is the important difference between us.

Mr. Jackson: I was trying to set out the areas of common ground. The speech by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley gave few clues to what the Liberal Democrats would do.
The third area of common ground between the Government and the Opposition is that, in response to probing by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, it became clear that the Opposition's commitment to spending on training is hedged about with many qualifications on affordability. Plainly, the Opposition accept the Government's view that it is impossible for Government to beat unemployment by increasing public spending on training.
The debate has shown that the Opposition have no miracle cure for unemployment, a phrase that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South was absolutely right to use. The Government have no miracle cure either, and nor have the Liberal Democrats.
The debate has shown a surprising amount of common ground on unemployment policies, but it also reminds us of what continues to be a fundamental difference between the parties. Government policy is committed to the principle of deregulation, to increased flexibility in the labour market, and to a reduction in the cost of employing labour, and that policy succeeded in creating more than 3 million new jobs in the 1980s. The Opposition are committed to a variety of measures to regulate the labour market, and they will all increase the cost of employing labour, reduce employment and destroy job opportunities.
The Opposition have chosen to focus on the problems of unemployment, and they owe the House and the country answers to the questions about their policies. I had hoped for some enlightenment from the hon. Member for Fife, Central, but there was none. I shall repeat some of the questions. Has the hon. Member for Sedgefield estimated the number of jobs that would be destroyed by the Opposition's industrial relations proposals? Has the hon. Gentleman estimated the number of jobs that would be lost if his proposals for a training levy were implemented

because those proposals would add to industry's costs? If he has made such an estimate, perhaps he will tell us the number of jobs that will be destroyed. The hon. Gentleman nods, so I expect that he will do so in the near future.
Does the hon. Member for Sedgefield agree with the CBI estimate that the European social action programme, which his party endorses, will cost about 100,000 jobs? If he disagrees with that estimate, perhaps he will tell us why and let us know how many jobs he is prepared to see that programme destroy.
What is the Opposition's response to the Fabian Society's pamphlet about the job destruction effects of Labour's minimum wage policy? We have repeatedly asked that question but have had no answer. Does the hon. Member for Sedgefield agree with the Fabian Society estimate of 850,000 lost jobs? If he disagrees, perhaps he will tell us why.
To do justice to the hon. Member for Sedgefield, I should say that he has made some progress in shifting the Opposition's policy on employment and training away from some of the rather sterile and unconstructive posturing in which his predecessor engaged in the 1980s. We remember the line taken by the Opposition about youth training and the technical and vocational education initiative. The Leader of the Opposition said that they were fit only for hewers of wood and drawers of water, but now they are very popular with the Opposition.
To hear what the Opposition have to say about employment training, one would think that they had supported it from the start, but that was never the case. The hon. Gentleman has made some headway in making his party adopt a more constructive position, but until he is prepared to give some serious answers to the questions being put about the Opposition's policy, I fear that all his well-honed rhetoric will simply lack in credibility.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 284.

Division No. 158]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Buckley, George J.


Allen, Graham
Caborn, Richard


Alton, David
Callaghan, Jim


Anderson, Donald
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Canavan, Dennis


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Ashton, Joe
Carr, Michael


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clelland, David


Barron, Kevin
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Battle, John
Cohen, Harry


Beckett, Margaret
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Beith, A. J.
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bennett, A. F. (D'nfn &amp; R'dish)
Cousins, Robin


Benton, Joseph
Cox, Tom


Bermingham, Gerald
Crowther, Stan


Blair, Tony
Cryer, Bob


Boateng, Paul
Cummings, John


Boyes, Roland
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bradley, Keith
Cunningham, Dr John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Darling, Alistair


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)






Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dixon, Don
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dobson, Frank
Martlew, Eric


Doran, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Meale, Alan


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michael, Alun


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eadie, Alexander
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Eastham, Ken
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Edwards, Huw
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morgan, Rhodri


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Morley, Elliot


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fearn, Ronald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Murphy, Paul


Fisher, Mark
Nellist, Dave


Flynn, Paul
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Brien, William


Foster, Derek
O'Hara, Edward


Foulkes, George
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fraser, John
Patchett, Terry


Fyfe, Maria
Pendry, Tom


Galloway, George
Pike, Peter L.


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Prescott, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Primarolo, Dawn


Gordon, Mildred
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gould, Bryan
Radice, Giles


Graham, Thomas
Randall, Stuart


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Reid, Dr John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Richardson, Jo


Grocott, Bruce
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hain, Peter
Rogers, Allan


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rooker, Jeff


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rooney, Terence


Haynes, Frank
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Rowlands, Ted


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ruddock, Joan


Henderson, Doug
Salmond, Alex


Hinchliffe, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Sheerman, Barry


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Sillars, Jim


Howells, Geraint
Skinner, Dennis


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hoyle, Doug
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Soley, Clive


Illsley, Eric
Spearing, Nigel


Ingram, Adam
Steinberg, Gerry


Janner, Greville
Stott, Roger


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Strang, Gavin


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Straw, Jack


Kennedy, Charles
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Kirkwood, Archy
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Lamond, James
Turner, Dennis


Leadbitter, Ted
Vaz, Keith


Leighton, Ron
Wallace, James


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Walley, Joan


Lewis, Terry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Livingstone, Ken
Wareing, Robert N.


Livsey, Richard
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Loyden, Eddie
Wilson, Brian


McAllion, John
Winnick, David


McKelvey, William
Worthington, Tony


McLeish, Henry
Wray, Jimmy


Maclennan, Robert



McMaster, Gordon
Tellers for the Ayes:


Madden, Max
Mr. Allen McKay and


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Mr. Thomas McAvoy.





NOES


Adley, Robert
Favell, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fookes, Dame Janet


Amos, Alan
Forman, Nigel


Arbuthnot, James
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forth, Eric


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Ashby, David
Fox, Sir Marcus


Aspinwall, Jack
Franks, Cecil


Atkins, Robert
Freeman, Roger


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
French, Douglas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fry, Peter


Baldry, Tony
Gale, Roger


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gardiner, Sir George


Batiste, Spencer
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gill, Christopher


Beggs, Roy
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bellingham, Henry
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bendall, Vivian
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bevan, David Gilroy
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gorst, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Body, Sir Richard
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boswell, Tim
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bottomley, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grist, Ian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Ground, Patrick


Bowis, John
Grylls, Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Graham
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hannam, John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Harris, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Christopher


Burt, Alistair
Hayes, Jerry


Butler, Chris
Hayward, Robert


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carrington, Matthew
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carttiss, Michael
Hill, James


Cash, William
Hind, Kenneth


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hordern, Sir Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Irvine, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Irving, Sir Charles


Cormack, Patrick
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert


Cran, James
Janman, Tim


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Curry, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Key, Robert


Day, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Devlin, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dicks, Terry
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dover, Den
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dunn, Bob
Knox, David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Eggar, Tim
Latham, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Evennett, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)






Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Lyell, Fit Hon Sir Nicholas
Porter, David (Waveney)


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Portillo, Michael


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Powell, William (Corby)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Price, Sir David


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


McLoughlin, Patrick
Redwood, John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Riddick, Graham


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Madel, David
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Malins, Humfrey
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Mans, Keith
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Maples, John
Rost, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Maude, Hon Francis
Sayeed, Jonathan


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Shaw, David (Dover)


Miller, Sir Hal
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Mills, Iain
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Miscampbell, Norman
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mitchell, Sir David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Monro, Sir Hector
Shersby, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sims, Roger


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Moss, Malcolm
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Speller, Tony


Needham, Richard
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Nelson, Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Squire, Robin


Nicholls, Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Steen, Anthony


Norris, Steve
Stern, Michael


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stevens, Lewis


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Page, Richard
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Paice, James
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Patnick, Irvine
Sumberg, David


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Summerson, Hugo


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman





Temple-Morris, Peter
Watts, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wells, Bowen


Thurnham, Peter
Wheeler, Sir John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Whitney, Ray


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Widdecombe, Ann


Tracey, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Tredinnick, David
Wilkinson, John


Trippier, David
Wilshire, David


Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Nicholas


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wolfson, Mark


Viggers, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Walden, George
Yeo, Tim


Walker, Bill (T'side North)



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Noes:


Walters, Sir Dennis
Mr. David Lightbown and


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on the success of policies which have created over a million new jobs since 1979; welcomes the introduction of the most comprehensive range of measures ever available to help the unemployed back to work; notes the very substantial increase in spending on training over the last 12 years; and, in particular, supports the measures in the recent White Paper, Education and Training for the 21st Century.

DANGEROUS DOGS BILL

Mr. Joseph Ashton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The motion is not debatable.

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Dangerous Dogs Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Housing (Govan)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Jim Siliars: I want to raise with the Minister the question of housing in the constituency of Govan. It is axiomatic that, as the constituency of Govan is part of the city of Glasgow, our housing problems arise from the condition of that city and our problems will be solved only if Glasgow's policies and resources are adequate to meet housing needs.
I begin by putting a question to the Minister: is there a housing problem on a scale that demands extraordinary action well beyond the present resources that have been applied within the city of Glasgow? That is the key question. There are two responses. The first is the Government's response as conveyed to me in a letter from the Prime Minister dated 29 May this year. His answer was no. The second is that expressed by experts, investigators, the council and councillors in Glasgow, the city's officials, the city's Members of Parliament and, above all, by the experience of the people. Their answer to the question is yes; there is an exceptional problem that requires exceptional action.
I shall set out in the course of my argument the relative terms of the Prime Minister's letter and I shall then examine them against our arguments from Glasgow and from within Govan. I believe that those who argue against the Government will be able to prove conclusively that there must be an urgent response to the private cries of despair from the families who are tortured by dampness, overcrowding, poor environment and homelessness and those who are terrified because there is no security for their homes.
Let me read a relevant passage from the Prime Minister's letter that I received in reply to one of mine:
I recognise that a substantial proportion of Glasgow's council housing suffers some degree of dampness and condensation, although the returns made by the District Council to the Scottish Office indicate that the problem is not as extensive as is quoted in your letter.
Glasgow district council house condition survey shows that 38 per cent. of the city's public sector housing stock —62,400 houses—is affected by dampness and condensation. The tenants argue that 53 per cent. of the housing stock—87,000 houses—is affected.
The tenants' views are not lightly dismissed in the house condition survey. In paragraph 4.14 it says:
In the tenants' view, 53 per cent. of GDC houses had a dampness or condensation problem, much more than the 38 per cent. reported by surveyors, and much more than in any other tenure. The tenants' estimate probably includes recent or recurrent problems not visible when the surveyors made their inspection.
The district council does not dismiss the argument that 87,000 rather than 62,000 houses are affected.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that Glasgow district council's figure is correct and that 38 per cent., or 62,400 houses, are affected. That figure represents human misery on an appalling scale and it is reflected in Govan constituency. The housing condition survey showed that in my constituency 57·8 per cent. of the housing is below tolerable standards of dampness or has condensation or some significant dampness or condensation. It is no wonder that 57·8 per cent. of the housing stock is in that

condition because, according to the survey, 31·3 per cent. of houses lack central heating and 20 per cent. of houses lack roof insulation.
Even if the tenants' figure is not accurate and the council's figure, on which the Prime Minister relies, is correct, the Prime Minister acknowledges that a substantial proportion of Glasgow council housing suffers some degree of dampness and condensation. We have an admission from the Prime Minister that there is a pretty big problem. What is his response? Unfortunately, it is self-satisfaction. In his letter to me he gave no sign that the Government understand the true position in Glasgow or Govan.
The Prime Minister continued in his letter to tell me:
Glasgow's gross HRA allocation for 1991–92 is over £100 million, which amounts to 22 per cent. of the Scottish total although Glasgow's share of council housing in Scotland is under 20 per cent.
The Prime Minister showed a fair degree of self-satisfaction in boasting about the figure of £100 million. I will tell the Minister what that translates to in real terms in my constituency. For new capital starts this year, we have the princely sum of £280,000. That was allocated to one project, phase 1 of re-wiring Mossheights. That is an allocation for new capital starts of £280,000 in an area which has 14,500 council houses. That cannot possibly touch people's needs for new windows, replacement of lead pipes, roof repairs or extensive renovation.
I shall list some of the areas in my constituency. There is Hillington, Penilee, Cardonald, Mosspark, Dumbreck, Corker hill, Drumoyne, Teucharhill, Moorpark, Ibrox, Cessock, Riverside, Tarfside Oval, Old Govan itself, Craigton and Shieldhall. Corkerhill requires £1 million to be spent to put pitched roofs on houses with flat roofs which are letting in water day in and day out. Such is the condition of the flat roofs that, when the workmen go on them to patch them, they break up the roof. Water penetrates those homes daily, and dampness spreads to increase illness among the children and other members of the community. Shieldhall, for example, requires work to the value of £1 million. I could cite case after case in which there is a crying need for investment, which cannot possibly be met from new start capital of £200,000.
Acute problems exist in all the areas I mentioned—including overcrowding and homelessness. The right-to-buy policy has increased to the point where there is a shrinking council house sector. Glasgow people cannot do what they used to do—move up the housing quality chain. That was once the way of life in Glasgow. It was rough justice, but it was accepted that, one day, one could move from poor housing conditions into better conditions. That choice is no longer available to the people of the city.
A report produced by the technical services agency for District 31, a Govan community council, confirms evidence produced by Corkerhill community council, and illustrates the need to tackle the scourge of dampness and condensation which makes life a nightmare and is a cause of despair for so many people. The report concludes:
These properties, with the operations outlined in this report, could provide housing of a standard fit for the next century. As they are, however, the balconies will continue to give rise to penetrating dampness, and the present insulation/ventilation and partial central heating system will make them expensive to heat, throughout, to a level where thermal safety … could be achieved. As a result, the elderly tenants in particular will suffer from cold stress-related illnesses, while large families will experience outbreaks of mould to thermally-isolated parts of their homes.


That reference to mould reminds me of a statement by a lady in Corkerhill in respect of the letter written by the Minister in response to a complaint about a lack of housing investment. The Minister replied that Glasgow was the city of culture—implying that things were a lot better there. At a public meeting during Glasgow's year as the city of culture, a lady said to me, "Aye, culture—I've had it growing on my walls for a year."
Earlier this year, Glasgow's municipal housing convenor was quoted in The Glaswegian newspaper as saying that it would take 300 years and more than £2 billion to make the city's housing damp-free. He said:
We're in complete sympathy with tenants' anger. But the Government won't let us spend anything like the amount that's needed.
Three hundred years is a bit long for folk to wait.
Security is another problem in my constituency, as it is in other parts of the city—especially where there is much drug-related crime. Old people and others are living in anxiety and terror. They are terrified to use the lifts. They are also frightened about staying at home in case their doors are kicked in and they are attacked. They are terrified to leave their homes, in case their doors are kicked in while they are out and various items of household furniture, televisions, videos, pension books, and money are taken.
I can give the Minister an example from Ibroxholm Oval, which is a couple of hundred yards from my own constituency office. Last week, there were 11 break-ins in that area in the course of just five days, and two old people were severely assaulted. One young girl has suffered five break-ins. There was virtually nothing left to take from her flat except the lass's kettle—and last week, that was stolen as well. People living in such conditions are absolutely terrified. The fundamental problem is that they have no secure door entry systems. The district council, to its credit, installed concierge services in Iona court and Broomlown court, which are on either side of Ibroxholm Oval, but that made Ibroxholm Oval the major target for folk who engage in crime, and everything that happens will happen inside Ibroxholm Oval.
Security is not only a housing but a law and order issue. The Government must act with a special allocation of money specifically for security. Our old people deserve no less.
The problems that I have described demand action and the mobilisation of resources. The Government have it within their power to act. One measure would transform the prospects for meeting people's housing needs—the writing off of the city's housing capital debt of £976 million. That huge burden imposes a huge penalty on tenants. It means that 75p in every pound of rent collected goes to meet debt charges. With that burden around the neck of the council and tenants, there is no chance of effectively tackling the housing crisis facing Glasgow and Govan families.
I put that to the Prime Minister. It is not a new suggestion or an idea that I have invented, because it can be found in the Grieve report on Glasgow's housing. That was an objective study. It was set up by the district council, but it was not laudatory of everything that the council has done. It was an objective panel—Sir Robert Grieve, the late Sir Monty Finniston, Professor Karn and Ian Clark. They suggested wiping off the capital debt.
That is a valid idea for a Tory Government, because since 1979 they have written off £15 billion of capital debt.

For example, £4·9 billion was written off to privatise the English water companies and £3·4 billion was written off to privatise British Steel. If they can write off that capital debt to stuff the pockets of people who will make a profit from it, they can do something for the people of Glasgow.
Writing off just under £1 billion would compare favourably with the £2·7 billion that is calculated to be the advantage to the south-east of England of mortgage interest relief. I put that to the Prime Minister. His reply was that Glasgow, in acknowledgment of that capital debt, is receiving just over £22 million in housing support grant —the exact figure is £22·7 million. He said in his letter to me that Glasgow has enough money to meet expenditure. It is not meeting expenditure that is at issue but whether that expenditure is enough to meet the housing needs of the people, and the answer is no.
I want to put that figure of £22·7 million in context. It must be realised that it is only a part payment of the huge amount of interest that must be repaid on the capital debt. I do not know the figure for the current year, but in 1991 it cost Glasgow £119 million to service the capital debt —£19 million more than the £100 million that the Prime Minister boasted will go to Glasgow this year. When one compares that £100 million about which the Prime Minister boasted with the £195 million that the Grieve report said would have to be invested in Glasgow's housing, one begins to see how the Government are failing the people of Glasgow.
Compared with other parts of Scotland, Glasgow has a low income per household. Therefore, it is heavily reliant on council housing. Unfortunately, it tops the list of major cities for social deprivation and need. The justification for those statements is contained in the Grieve report, yet people still live in those adverse circumstances and face dampness and illness, overcrowding, lack of maintenance and inadequate security. They are lumbered with a housing debt that they simply cannot meet.
As the Grieve report said, Glasgow is a special case. Within Glasgow, Govan—along with other areas of the city—represents a special case. I want what the people will demand—a capital debt write-off as the prerequisite of a real attack on housing problems, and an emergency injection of cash—now—for security purposes.
Ordinary folk in Govan and other parts of the city of Glasgow have a human right, and that human right is to enjoy the same kind of housing that the Minister and I can buy for ourselves and our families—in terms of spaciousness, comfort and security. That is the challenge that I put to the Government tonight, and I hope that I shall get a positive response.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) on his success in securing this Adjournment debate. He has raised a number of issues. Many of the criticisms that he voiced were directed at Glasgow district council, whose responsibility it is—within the allocation made available to it—to address housing needs. I have no doubt that the council will take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments about Corkerhill and about dampness, of his call for more security systems and of all the other points that he matte about individual housing schemes in Glasgow.
The hon. Gentleman has recently made critical comments about Scottish Homes. I should mention to him the fact that no less than £82 million is being spent by Scottish Homes in the Glasgow area this year, a considerable proportion of it in Govan—a point to which I shall return in a moment.
Glasgow has been generously treated in terms of capital allocations, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, have totalled more than £100 million, representing more than 22 per cent. of the total resources, while Glasgow's proportion of Scottish local authority housing is just under 20 per cent. I should also mention the fact that an additional allocation of £750,000 has been made available to Glasgow to enable the council to introduce proposals for a wide range of accommodation to house the young and single homeless.
Moreover, under the partnership initiative, considerable sums have been made available to Castlemilk and the final HRA allocations included £26·9 million to support housing regeneration projects in the Castlemilk partnership area, which, as I know the hon. Gentleman would agree, has some of the most pressing problems anywhere in Scotland. We have made available further additional resources, amounting to £21·8 million for innovative projects in Ardencraig, Scarrel, Glenacre and Croftfoot in Castlemilk over six years.
The hon. Gentleman asked about dampness and condensation. In recognition of the extent to which those problems affect Glasgow's housing—including housing in areas such as Corkerhill—the council has been invited to bid for a share of the additional resources of £2 million which we are making available for energy savings and efficiency projects, and I hope to announce the distribution of those resources shortly.
Glasgow's non-HRA capital allocations amount to more than £24 million for 1991–92. Overall investment in housing in Glasgow this year amounts to more than £125 million, setting aside the resources earmarked for the innovative housing projects in the Castlemilk partnership area. That means that the council has resources of more than £109 million in aggregate for investment elsewhere in the city.
I am very sympathetic to the needs of Glasgow and believe that those allocations are tangible evidence of our commitment to regeneration in Glasgow. I should point out that it is open to the district to increase the resources available by encouraging more council house sales. Let me give an example. Since 1979, only 12·4 per cent. of Glasgow's council houses have been sold, compared with more than 20 per cent. in Scotland as a whole. Part of the reason for that lies in the fact that the council is taking about 12 months to process applications. Its average processing time for such sales amounts to more than 11 months. I regard that as quite unacceptable. Another example is the grudging reluctance of the council to meet—

Mr. Tony Worthington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. I am answering the hon. Member for Govan, and there are many points to answer in the limited time available.
Our recent publicity campaign on rents into mortgages revealed that more than 20,000 tenants in Scotland were interested. Some 4,400 came from the Glasgow area, representing 23 per cent. of the Scottish total. The district council has produced a leaflet, mentioning that only two tenants from East Kilbride and eight from Glasgow have taken up the scheme. In fact, the latest figures show that 13 sales have been completed in East Kilbride and 19 in the Glasgow region of Scottish Homes. The latest figures show that there have been 249 applications from local authority tenants under the scheme—16 from Glasgow district council—and that a further 149 tenants from Glasgow have requested counselling visits. One thousand rents-to-mortgage sales in Glasgow would produce about £9 million of receipts for Glasgow district council, which it could spend on the rest of its public sector stock.
I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should call for the abolition of Scottish Homes. In only two years, it has established itself as a major vehicle for improvement and innovation in Scottish Housing. It has already invested nearly £600 million in Scotland's housing stock and plans over £300 million of expenditure in 1991–92. It is making a vital contribution to tackling housing needs in the areas with the worst problems in Scotland. It is responding to the aspirations of tenants who wish to exercise greater control over their housing through the formation of housing associations and co-operatives.
Scottish Homes' contribution in Glasgow has been considerable. It has given nearly £11 million in grant to housing associations in the Govan area in the past two financial years and expects to spend a further £4·8 million this year. In total, it expects to spend more than £82 million in the Glasgow area this year—an immense sum—yet the hon. Gentleman wishes to deprive his constituents of such support by abolishing Scottish Homes, thus halting projects that are in progress. He would do away with Scottish Homes in spite of the reality—

Mr. Sillars: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No; I am answering the hon. Gentleman's question.
The hon. Gentleman would abolish Scottish Homes despite its great expertise, ability and the know-how which has been built up over the years and which it would be a tragedy to disrupt. The Central Govan and Talbot housing associations are undertaking work, with grants from Scottish Homes. A special needs programme of £1·2 million for mentally handicapped and elderly people in Govan will shortly be completed. With Scottish Homes' assistance, Linthouse housing association will also be converting Elder Cottage hospital in Govan to provide 22 sheltered housing units. In addition, Glasgow district council has come to strategic agreement with Scottish Homes, which will be in the interests of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and of Glasgow as a whole.
The hon. Gentleman appears to believe that writing off capital debt is like waving a magic wand, and that, by doing so, Glasgow's difficulties would be resolved. However, the costs associated with debt write-offs would, in Glasgow, involve expenditure of £976 million. That would have to be raised either through taxation or borrowing. It follows that any decision along those lines would have to be considered most carefully and would, of course, require legislation. We have no such proposals.
I do not believe that there is a case for writing off Glasgow's capital debt, and I shall say why. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it amounts on average to £6,700 per house, which is well below the value of the housing stock on the basis of right-to-buy sales, which is about £19,000 per house. There is therefore no evidence that Glasgow's capital debt is excessive in relation to the capital value of the assets with which the debt is associated. The value of right-to-buy sales is about £10,000 per house, which is more than the average debt and, similarly, a rents-to-mortgage sale would produce about £9,000 which is, again, much more than the average debt.
In addition, because of the system of housing support grant through which the Government give assistance to those authorities that need it, there is no possibility of the district council defaulting on its loan payments. The Government provide substantial housing support grant to Glasgow. This year it amounts to £22·7 million, or £160 per council house. That represents 40 per cent. of the Scottish total of housing support grant, compared with Glasgow's share of Scotland's council house stock of less than 20 per cent. Since housing support grant was introduced, Glasgow has received a total of £386 million from the Government. Housing support grant is a deficit subsidy designed to fill the gap between estimated expenditure and estimated income.
The Grieve report also recommended the disposal of empty stock. If Glasgow cannot cope with the empty stock on its own, it should follow up possibilities with Scottish Homes and housing associations. Should vacant stock still be available, it would be possible to involve the private sector to an ever greater extent. I believe that such a policy would undoubtedly succeed.
I have listened carefully to the criticisms levelled by the hon. Member for Govan, but his claims are unfounded. This year we have made available more than £100 million to Glasgow district council to spend on its own stock. The council can use that substantial level of resources to tackle condensation and dampness, homelessness or other problems in Govan or elsewhere. It is right that the council should take its own view on priorities. Moreover, the council will benefit from the additional resources that we are making available for homelessness, energy efficiency and the urban partnership.
Resources for investment could be increased if the council were to take a more positive attitude towards the scope for right-to-buy and rents-to-mortgage sales. Its record on those is deplorable.
Scottish Homes has brought additional resources to Scottish housing and it has made a major contribution of £82 million to the Glasgow area—equivalent to literally millions in Govan. The hon. Member for Govan should express gratitude to those at Scottish Homes for working flat out at the sharp end of the housing problem for his constituents.
There is no case for writing off Glasgow's capital debt. The Government are providing more than £22 million in housing support grant to help tenants. We have increased spending on housing in real terms by 17 per cent. since 1979, whereas it fell by 35 per cent. under the previous Labour Government, which the hon. Member for Govan then supported.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.